Sofia: Protest against the disposal of US military bases in Bulgaria
22 Nov 2005 05:35 GMT
On 12 November a protest against the US military bases, which are going to be situated near the villages Novo Selo, Bezmer and near the Burgas' port, took place in Sofia (Bulgaria's capitol). More than 500 people marched through the central streets of Sofia, expressing their stand against all military bases. The protest ended in front of the National Theater "Ivan Vazov". In the protest took part the anarcho-block of autonomous antiauthoritarian group "AnarchoResistance" (around 60 people). Few nationalists form BNS (Bulgarian National Union) were also there but left quickly after the demo.
On the evening of 10 November two activists were arrested and brutally beaten by the police, while they were sticking posters for the protest near the Synagogue. The cops said that Vladimir Trichkov and Stefan Andonov were sticking the posters on the Synagogue's wall (which is a complete lie!) and they resisted the arrest. Their presence in the area of the Synagogue was used by the police to paste words like "anti-Semite" and "nationalist" about them (which is also a complete lie!). From 12 November the two are on hunger strike after the refusal of medical help and meeting with their families. They are sued by the quick procedure. The Minister of Interior, Rumen Petkov, awarded in the weekend the two cops, who arrested Vladimir and Stefan, for the "perfect work" and put with that pressure on the court for convicting the two activists "guilty".
Pictures from the protest: 1 | 2
Articles about the arrest (in bulgarian): 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
After the protest on Saturday most of the people protested also in front of the police station, where Vladimir and Stefan were kept for more than 5 days without charges.
On the first court meeting on Monday around 20:00 o'clock (!) the witnesses of the defense were not even allowed to enter the court room. On the next day Vladimir and Stefan were out on 500 leva bail. The next court meeting is on 17 November.
On 19 December 1999 the bulgarian parliament accepted the disposal of US military bases, despite that most of the people are against the presence of US military forces. The US authorities even said that they aren't going to pay anything for the use of bulgarian territory.
Cops or Villains?
Alex 22.Nov.2005 07:54
In the case in which Vlado and Stefan were placed at the defendants bench, the state, represented by Petkov and Pirinski, committed a gross interference, aimed to influence the court's judgement - and to predetermine the outcome of the trial. The cops, who arrested and beat Vlado and Stefan, were officially awarded on the very next day, even if it was the weekend - and that made it impossible for the two young guys to be declared not guilty. A case of police brutality, where both defendants are not guilty and the police officials - awarded, would be preposterous. The decision of the court is the one that will set the prestige - and also the future - of Bulgarian justice system.
November 11, two young people had been placing posters that read that on the next day an authorized rally would be held. They were two young people, two Bulgarian students - not "illegal" immigrants; not gypsies; not BBC investigative reporters or Romanian ones, carrying hidden cameras. Two young people, the kind of people who do not steal electric cables, do not spray messages like "die, cops, die" or "turn all gypsies to soap" on the walls or draw swastikas on the synagogue; they do not smoke dope - or sell it. The kind of people who do not sing macedonian songs as loud as they can in the middle of the night, do not sell themselves for money, do not assassinate top bankers - they do not even belong to the fan club of the football team "Levski".
The next day posters with a banned tank were all over the walls of Sofia – because these guys and many others like them placed them there. That kind of posters that never appeared during the days of the Nazi occupation, the Stalinist concentration camps, the Prague spring, the war in Afghanistan and the repression against ethnic Turks - and the screaming lack of protest posters back then put Sofia in line with the "bad" cities around the world in the minds of progressive people.
The decent folks of Sofia, most of them born 40-50 years ago, welcomed them with smiles on their faces. These people had not forgotten the old times; they had not forgotten what would have happened to them if they placed posters with a banned Russian tank on any wall before 1989. The old times, when the government leaders were in cahoots with Victor Kulikov - not Chavier Solana or Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. The decent folks were well aware of the fact that among the organizers of the rally were some hard-core fans of the Russian military. But this is not what matters – we know how to deal with these people – moreover, they are getting so darn old, that they are not able to manage their own lives without hard medication. The most important of it all is the fact that what would have happened to someone, who had placed posters with banned Russian tanks in the years before 1989, will never happen again.
But it did happen - again. Or at least it is about to happen over and over if once again we chose to "side with the powerful". If we chose to obey the modern successors of Stanko Todorov and Dimityr Stojanov - the Communist regime's last parliament chief and minister of interior. If we accept the scenario where the powerful are allowed to stay dirty as long as the walls stay clean. If we accept that rulers can ravage and plunder as long as the school kids stay quiet and do their homework.
If you accept, that is. I do not. I do not, even if I wasn't born on the 4th of July. I was born on the 23th of September. I do not want anyone to forget the madness of Bolshevism or the slaughters commmited by the junta. Remember: “that nation, a nation of mortified people; of people – gone numb, in misery deeper - that no beggar faced; with no reason left in their heads and no nerves to keep on– that nation rebeled ” and “they slaughtered their own people like no invaders have done before them”. The author of the first lines is a left-wing modernist poet; the others were written by a member of parliament, a democrat. We need to remind ourelves that there are days and causes for the different people to stand together against the crimes of the power. At least this is the way things get done in the "good" cities all over the world.
More info...
Val 22.Nov.2005 08:00
On October 26 U.S. Embassy officials in Sofia admitted that the US will send 2,700 troops to Bulgaria and another 2,300 to Romania on six-month rotations.
http://politicom.moldova.org/stiri/eng/6235
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1248392&C=europe
This is a part of the new global plans recently announced by the Pentagon to redeploy between 60,000 and 70,000 service members from Germany and South Korea in the next 10 years to new bases in Eastern Europe, particularly in Romania and Bulgaria.
The Trial...
Peter 24.Nov.2005 15:00
The next court meeting is going to take place on 2nd December 2005.
For now the trial is adjourned...
The Dark Political Alleys of Torture
richard kobzey 25.Nov.2005 12:15
If they are trying to decide if they should charge you with a crime, let them investigate the matter on their own time.
http://www.indymedia.org
We are not required to submit to privacy with those who might possibly be exploiting their position in order to lead us into a dark political alley. So many people get screwed over for speaking without family, friends, witnesses, or lawyers present. With witnesses it is much more difficult for politically deployed agents to twist your testimony around in court. Let them deal with this difficulty, rather than you incurring the difficulty of disproving what your nervous psyche supposedly uttered in some dark political alley.
Whether or NOT one is charged with a crime, when one is alone, one should not speak but verbalize this determination and firmly expect the agents to refrain from intimidation or further questioning. Until one is charged with a crime, it is one’s right to continue walking. If you have the desire to be helpful invite them to a popular coffee spot.
Remember too, that your psychological state is yours to maintain and yours to protect yourself from legal disadvantages.
Torture is an absolute abomination of the Fifth Amendment. If torture is overlooked when people are suspected of terrorism, corrupt politicians will be looking to label dissenters terrorists. I am afraid that this is already happening. Democracy must organize itself to cut off the lifeblood of those who hold such gruesome command.
Those who are illegally detained by US and international authorities rightly ought to be defended in the International Criminal Court, and deserving of restitution. When such crimes become the order of any democratic administration, democracy receives a deadly wound.
Are innocent people serving time while being tortured?
Who is at all interested in preventing government sanctioned torture from coming to his or her neighborhood?
If anyone needs help deciding if I am guilty of demanding that the game of politics must be made to remain transparent and fair at any attention-getting cost, they will have to decide that in court.
Let my accuser choose between meeting with me in court, or joining Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan and I for a long overdue dialogue.
When the great terrorist comes charging at me, what will I be charged with?
Who will scuttle me away into the dark alley where the abomination of desolation begins?
What makes me worthy not to be tortured in some CIA prison, if I will not stand vehemently opposed to such evil? Will I stand up when it is too late?
NOTE: Feel free to incorporate this, or any other of my writings into your own publications at Independent Media (indymedia.org).
There might even be an indymedia.org serving your region. You can publish locally or internationally. Most Independent Media websites are quite lenient with their anonymous publishers; in fact they will even save the crazy rants at a link called ‘Hidden Posts’ or ‘Hidden Articles’.
If you have problems publishing at the main website, try any of the other regions listed down the left side of its opening URL:
~Greetings from Canada!
twinkle twinkle
ninja 27.Nov.2005 12:18
TWINKLE TWINKLE
Twinkle Twinkle
Know Those Who Would Combine False Christianity with State Control
compiled by richard kobzey 29.Nov.2005 01:09
.
http://www.patrobertson.com/Teaching/Teachingonfirstamendment.asp
www.au.orgamericansunited@au.org 
charles.sumner@juno.org
http://www.indymedia.org
http://harmony.gnn.tv/blogs/10244/guantanamo_ordeal_of_al_jazeera_cameraman
- Our words follow us…
The First Amendment – as explained by Pat Robertson
Ladies and gentlemen, this controversy should never have happened. This ruling of the court should never have happened. The rulings of the Supreme Court should never have happened.
I talked with Supreme Court Associate Justice Thomas several years ago when he visited Regent University, and he said, "I read the First Amendment. It's clear."
Let me show you something. In the early days of this nation, we had 13 colonies, and those 13 colonies got together and formed a nation. Now of these, a number had established churches, and they did not want a national church, because they had their own churches. And so they said, "If we're going to ratify the First Amendment, you've got to have in there these words, and here they are. Congress shall make no law." It doesn't say anything about Chief Justice Moore putting the Ten Commandments in the courthouse in Alabama. "Congress shall make no law," what, "respecting an establishment of religion." And what did that mean? It meant we didn't want another Anglican church in America like they had in England or we had here in Virginia. Massachusetts also had an established church. Congress shall not set up a national church. That's what it meant.
Later on, a man named Blaine, James Blaine, proposed what was called the Blaine Amendment. And the Blaine Amendment said we're going to take the entire Bill of Rights and apply it to the states. And the Blaine Amendment was voted down in Congress. Congress in those days said, "No way are you going to take the Bill of Rights and apply everything that is a restriction of the federal government and apply it to the states."
Do you see anything in here that says there shall be a separation of church and state? Let me show you precise language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Now, if a federal judge comes in as an agent of Congress and prohibits the free exercise of religion, then he has violated the First Amendment.
There is nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state. It doesn't exist. This is a fiction that has been created by courts over the last few years, and, as Jefferson said, by allowing them to interpret the Constitution we have become under the tyranny of an oligarchy. That's why we're praying that three of those judges will be led by God to step down, those liberals, so we can have three conservatives who will interpret the Constitution, not try to rewrite it.
That's what we're facing, ladies and gentlemen, and this incident in Montgomery, Alabama is just one more. The American Center of Law and Justice, which I'm pleased to be the president of, now has 10 cases in the courts right now dealing with the Ten Commandments displays, and we've won several of them. And, although I disagreed with Judge Moore's judicial tactics, I didn't think they were very wise, I think his right to put the Ten Commandments in the courthouse is absolutely settled.
Plus, the United States Supreme Court is hypocritical. They start their meetings with prayer, but they say school students can't pray. But the courts say, "God bless this honorable court." I think that's a blasphemy to ask God to bless that bunch up there in that Supreme Court. In my opinion, it's blasphemy. But secondly, they also have the Ten Commandments in their courtroom. So let's get jackhammers to the Supreme Court of the United States and cut those things out of there if we're going to be consistent with what the Supreme Court has said. But that's the national government, and they have the Ten Commandments.
This is the state government. The 13 states who formed our great nation never intended when they ratified the First Amendment to have these rulings that have been in effect over the last, really just a few decades. It's within the last 50 years. And ladies and gentlemen, it's time to declare ourselves free from judicial tyranny. We uphold the rule of law, but tyrants should not be tolerated.
[ The precedind article comes from Pat Robertson’s official website]
Now, this is our constitution of the matter:
11 Myths About Church and State
"IN 1962 MADALYN MURRAY O'HAIR KICKED GOD, THE BIBLE AND PRAYER OUT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS..." And 10 Other Myths About Church and State
"Separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution."
"Separation of church and state is a communist idea."
"Separation of church and state is anti-religion, and only atheists support it."
Misguided clerics and short-sighted politicians sometimes say things like this about the constitutional principle of church-state separation. But a quick review of history demonstrates that these charges just aren't true.
To help Americans be on guard against such distortions, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has compiled a list of the most common myths about separation of church and state along with the facts.
MYTH 1: Separation of church and state is not in the U.S. Constitution.
It is true that the literal phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but that does not mean the concept isn't there. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
What does that mean? A little history is helpful: In an 1802 letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson, then president, declared that the American people through the First Amendment had erected a "wall of separation between church and state." (Colonial religious liberty pioneer Roger Williams used a similar phrase 150 years earlier.)
Jefferson, however, was not the only leading figure of the post-revolutionary period to use the term separation. James Madison, considered to be the Father of the Constitution, said in an 1819 letter, "[T]he number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church and state." In an earlier, undated essay (probably early 1800s), Madison wrote, "Strongly guarded...is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."
As eminent church-state scholar Leo Pfeffer notes in his book, Church, State and Freedom, "It is true, of course, that the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution. But it was inevitable that some convenient term should come into existence to verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American people....[T]he right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term 'fair trial' is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer home, who would deny that 'religious liberty' is a constitutional principle?
Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including 'separation of church and state,' have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles."
Thus, it is entirely appropriate to speak of the "constitutional principle of church-state separation" since that phrase summarizes what the First Amendment's religion clauses do they separate church and state.
MYTH 2: Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists was a mere courtesy and should not be regarded as important.
Religious Right activists have tried for decades to make light of Jefferson's "wall of separation" response to the Danbury Baptists, attempting to dismiss it as a hastily written note designed to win the favor of a political constituency. But a glance at the history surrounding the letter shows they are simply wrong.
As church-state scholar Pfeffer points out, Jefferson clearly saw the letter as an opportunity to make a major pronouncement on church and state. Before sending the missive, Jefferson had it reviewed by Levi Lincoln, his attorney general. Jefferson told Lincoln he viewed the response as a way of "sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets."
At the time he wrote the letter, Jefferson was under fire from conservative religious elements who hated his strong stand for full religious liberty. Jefferson saw his response to the Danbury Baptists as an opportunity to clear up his views on church and state. Far from being a mere courtesy, the letter represented a summary of Jefferson's thinking on the purpose and effect of the First Amendment's religion clauses.
Jefferson's Danbury letter has been cited favorably by the Supreme Court many times. In its 1879 Reynolds v. U.S. decision the high court said Jefferson's observations "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In the court's 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" It is only in recent times that separation has come under attack by judges in the federal court system who oppose separation of church and state.
(Some Religious Right propagandists have take to outright fabrications in order to refute the Jefferson metaphor. They sometimes claim that Jefferson described his wall as "one- directional," forbidding government intervention into religion, but allowing church intrusion into government. In fact, Jefferson used no such language, as the text of the Danbury letter available from Americans United attests.)
MYTH 3: SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS NOT AN AMERICAN PRINCIPLE BUT IS FOUND IN ARTICLE 53 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SOVIET UNION.
This lie about separation of church and state still frequently espoused by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson is perhaps the most offensive to church-state separationists because it attempts to taint a vital American principle with the brush of communism. Even a brief review of the facts proves that this statement is nonsense. The modern Soviet state came into being after the Russian Revolution of 1917. The Soviet constitution was rewritten several times, and more recent versions included American-style guarantees of freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly. (These provisions, of course, were never obeyed by the Soviet government.)
Article 124 of the country's 1947 constitution has been translated by some scholars to read, "In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the USSR is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens."
Since Jefferson coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" in 1802, a full 145 years before the Soviet provision was written, it is obviously incorrect to suggest that the Soviets pioneered the separation principle.
MYTH 4: THE UNITED STATES WAS FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION.
Those who make this assertion confuse the founding of the United States as a political unit with the settlement of North America. It is true that a number of the first Europeans to arrive on our shores were religious dissenters who sought freedom to worship. Many of these people believed they were establishing some type of Christian utopia, and many supported religious liberty only for themselves. Most of the early colonies were theocracies where only those who worshipped according to state orthodoxy were welcome. Following the American Revolution, political leaders began to construct the new U.S. government. Although a minority clung to European notions of church-state union, a general consensus emerged that the new country should steer clear of officially established religion. States with government-favored religions gradually began moving toward separation also. Massachusetts, the last state to maintain an official religion, disestablished its state church in 1833.
During the Constitutional Convention, a minority faction favored some recognition of Christianity in the Constitution. In a report to Maryland lawmakers, delegate Luther Martin asserted that "in a Christian country, it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." His views were rejected, and the Constitution was adopted as a secular document.
Incidentally, Ben Franklin did indeed urge the delegates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to open their sessions with morning prayers, as many Religious Right activists point out. However, the Convention, which had been meeting for a month without invocational prayers, did not concur. The Convention's records show that the delegates voted to adjourn rather than debate the issue. The matter was not brought up again when the Convention reconvened.
Further proof that the founders did not intend for the government to be Christian is found in the Treaty of Tripoli, a trade agreement signed between the United States and the Muslim region of north Africa in 1797 after negotiations under George Washington. The document, which was approved by the Senate under John Adams, states flatly, "[T]he Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...." (The assertion remained a part of the trade agreement for eight years, until the treaty was renegotiated.)
The framers wrote the Constitution as a secular document not because they were hostile to Christianity but because they did not want to imply that the new federal government would have any authority to meddle in religion.
MYTH 5: THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S RELIGION CLAUSES WERE INTENDED ONLY TO PREVENT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL CHURCH.
If all the framers wanted to do was ban a national church, they had plenty of opportunities to state exactly that in the First Amendment. In fact, an early draft of the First Amendment read in part, "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief, nor shall any national religion be established...." This draft was rejected. Following extensive debate, the language found in the First Amendment today was settled on.
The historical record indicates that the framers wanted the First Amendment to ban not only establishment of a single church but also "multiple establishments," that is, a system by which the government funds many religions on an equal basis.
A good overview of the development of the language of the First Amendment is found in scholar John M. Swomley's 1987 book Religious Liberty and the Secular State. Swomley shows that during the House of Representatives' debate on the language of the religion clauses, members specifically rejected a version reading, "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination in preference to another...." The founders wanted to bar all religious establishments; they left no room for "non- preferentialism," the view touted by today's accommodationists that government can aid religion as long as it assists all religions equally. (The Senate likewise rejected three versions of the First Amendment that would have permitted non-preferential support for religion.)
MYTH 6: THE SUPREME COURT HAS DECLARED THAT THE UNITED STATES IS A CHRISTIAN NATION.
In the Supreme Court's 1892 Holy Trinity Church v. United States decision Justice David Brewer wrote that "this is a Christian nation." Brewer's statement occurred in dicta, a legal term meaning writing that reflects a judge's personal opinion, not an official court pronouncement that sets legally binding precedent.
Historians debate what Brewer meant by the statement, some claiming that he only intended to acknowledge that Christianity has always been a dominant force in American life. Research by Americans United shows that five years after the Trinity ruling, Brewer himself seemed to step away from it in a case dealing with legalized prostitution in New Orleans.
The New Orleans dispute arose when a Methodist church sought an injunction to bar implementation of a city ordinance allowing prostitution in one zone in the city. The Methodists argued the measure would "destroy the morals, peace and good order of the neighborhood."
Citing the Trinity decision, church officials insisted that the ordinance encouraged prostitution, an activity inconsistent with Christianity "which the Supreme Court of the United States says is the foundation of our government and the civilization which it has produced...."
Writing for a unanimous court, Brewer completely ignored the church's religious argument and upheld the New Orleans law. Brewer's bypass suggests that he did not mean to assert in the Trinity case that the United States should enforce Christianity through its laws.
In any case, the Trinity decision is a legal anomaly that has been cited by the court only once since then. And obviously the opinion of one obscure Supreme Court justice does not amount to an official decree that the United States is a Christian nation. If a Christian republic had been the goal of the framers, that sentiment would have been included in the Constitution.
MYTH 7: THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO KEEP THE STATE FROM INTERFERING WITH THE CHURCH, NOT TO BAR RELIGIOUS GROUPS FROM CO-OPTING THE GOVERNMENT.
Jefferson and Madison held an expansive view of the First Amendment, arguing that church-state separation would protect both religion and government.
Madison specifically feared that a small group of powerful churches would join together and seek establishment or special favors from the government. To prevent this from happening, Madison spoke of the desirability of a "multiplicity of sects" that would guard against government favoritism.
Jefferson and Madison did not see church-state separation as an "either or" proposition or argue that one institution needed greater protection than the other. As historian Garry Wills points out in his 1990 book Under God, Jefferson believed that no worthy religion would seek the power of the state to coerce belief. In his notes he argued that disestablishment would strengthen religion, holding that it would "oblige its ministers to be industrious [and] exemplary." The state likewise was degraded by an established faith, Jefferson asserted, because establishment made it a partner in a system based on bribery of religion.
Madison also argued that establishment was no friend to religion or the state. He insisted that civil society would be hindered by establishment, charging that attempts to enforce religious belief by law would weaken government. In his 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance, Madison stated flatly that "Religion is not helped by establishment, but is hurt by it."
MYTH 8: MADALYN MURRAY O'HAIR, AN ATHEIST, SINGLE-HANDEDLY REMOVED GOD, THE BIBLE AND PRAYER FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN 1962.
Atheist leader Madalyn Murray O'Hair played no role in the Supreme Court's school prayer decision of 1962.
In the Engel v. Vitale case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6- 1 against New York's "Regents' prayer," a "non-denominational" prayer state education officials had composed for public schoolchildren to recite.
The government-sponsored religious devotion was challenged in court by a group of parents from New Hyde Park some atheists, some believers. O'Hair was not involved in the case at all.
One year later, a case originated by a Philadelphia-area man named Ed Schempp challenging mandatory Bible reading in Pennsylvania schools reached the Supreme Court. At the same time, Murray O'Hair was challenging a similar practice as well as the recitation of the Lord's Prayer in Maryland public schools. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases and in 1963 ruled 8-1 that devotional Bible reading or other government-sponsored religious activities in public schools are unconstitutional.
The Engel and Schempp cases were a result of the changing religious landscape of the United States. As religious minorities grew more confident of their rightful place in American society, they came to resent the de facto Protestant flavor in many public schools. Litigation was inevitable. The high court's rulings striking down mandatory prayer and devotional Bible reading in public schools would have occurred if O'Hair had never been born. The controversial Texas atheist serves as a convenient villain for Religious Right propagandists who hate religious liberty and church-state separation.
It is also important to remember that neither of these rulings removed prayer or Bible reading from public schools. Truly voluntary religious exercises in public schools have never been held illegal. The rulings of the early '60s simply prevented the government, through the public schools, from intervening in sensitive religious matters. Voluntary student-initiated Bible study and prayer clubs were reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 1990, when the justices upheld the Equal Access Act, a federal law that permits students to form religion clubs at public high schools under certain conditions.
The rulings from the 1960s are also not hostile toward religion, as the justices took pains to point out. In the Abington decision, Justice Tom Clark wrote for the court majority, "[I]t might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment."
MYTH 9: EVER SINCE PRAYER WAS REMOVED FROM SCHOOLS, PUBLIC SCHOOL PERFORMANCE HAS DECLINED AND SOCIAL ILLS HAVE INCREASED.
This argument is a common fallacy of logic known as post hoc ergo propter hoc, or, the assumption that if two events occur in sequence, that the first must have caused the second. (The phrase is Latin for "after this, therefore on account of this.")
It is true that some indices of school performance have decreased since 1962, but absolutely no evidence exists linking these developments to the school prayer issue. In fact, the drop has been caused by wholly unrelated factors. SAT scores, for example, are lower today simply because more students from a wider variety of socio-economic backgrounds take the test. In the years preceding 1962, the SAT was taken almost exclusively by upper class, well-educated students from wealthy backgrounds.
The problems experienced in American society today are due to complex socio-economic factors. It is simplistic thinking to blame every societal problem from the increase in teenage pregnancies to the escalating divorce rate on a lack of required prayer in schools.
It should also be pointed out that not all indicators of American society have declined since 1962. Life expectancy, for instance, is up, as is the average standard of living. Impressive medical advances have occurred in the past 30 years, and labor- reducing technologies are commonplace. School prayer advocates are quick to blame every bad thing that has occurred since 1962 on the prayer ruling, but they never mention the positive developments, which, under their premise, must also be a result of the decisions. The prayer and Bible reading decisions did cause two clear-cut results: Families gained greater religious liberty and the right to decide which religious exercises their children participate in, and church-state separation was strengthened.
MYTH 10: SCHOOL-SPONSORED PRAYER AND BIBLE READING TOOK PLACE IN ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS BEFORE 1962.
Several state supreme courts had already removed government- sponsored school prayer and Bible reading from public schools prior to 1962. The Illinois Supreme Court, for example, declared mandatory public school religious exercises unconstitutional in 1910. By the time of the Engel decision, public school-sponsored religious exercises were most common in Northeastern and Southern states. Some Western and Midwestern states had already removed the practices.
A 1960 survey by Americans United determined that only five states had required Bible reading laws on the books. Twenty-five states had laws authorizing "optional" Bible reading. Eleven states had declared the practice unconstitutional. (The remaining states had no laws on the subject.) The trend was clearly running in favor of a voluntary phase out of these practices.
MYTH 11: THE SUPREME COURT HAS DECLARED THAT SECULAR HUMANISM IS A RELIGION, AND SECULAR HUMANISM IS THE ESTABLISHED RELIGION OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
In a footnote to the Supreme Court's 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God is Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others." The Torcaso case dealt with religious tests for public office; it had nothing to do with public schools. The justice's comment is far from a finding that humanism is being taught in the schools.
The Supreme Court and lower federal courts have ruled repeatedly that public schools and other government agencies may not establish "a religion of secularism" any more than they can promote any other religious viewpoint. The courts have decreed that public schools must be religiously neutral. Government neutrality toward religion is not the same thing as government hostility toward religion. They are synonymous only in the view of Religious Right groups that label as hostility any action by government that does not favor their beliefs.
Furthermore, the percentage of Americans who call themselves secular humanists is very small. It is not possible that such a minuscule group could take control of the entire public school system, which is highly decentralized and controlled by local school boards chosen by the voters or their representatives. "Secular humanism" is a bogeyman the Religious Right uses to attack public education.
The constitutional principle of church-state separation has given Americans greater religious freedom than any people in history. Thanks in large part to this concept, citizens from many different religious backgrounds live together in peace. The right of each individual to join and support a religious group or not do so is protected.
Americans United urges you to help spread the truth about church-state separation. If you see myths about separation repeated in local newspapers, magazines and other mass media, write in and set the record straight. Americans deserve to know the true story of the origins of religious liberty. Thomas Jefferson said it best: "To penetrate and dissipate these clouds of darkness, the general mind must be strengthened by education."
ABOUT AMERICANS UNITED
Since 1947 Americans United for Separation of Church and State has promoted the principle of church-state separation as an essential constitutional guarantee of religious liberty. A nonpartisan, nonprofit educational organization, we welcome as members all Americans who share our concern about freedom of conscience.
If you would like more information about the work of Americans United, write to our national office at 1816 Jefferson Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 466-3234.
If you see myths about church-state separation repeated in the media, use this information to set the record straight. Help us reach more people by providing e-mail addresses of people who should receive periodic information.
http://
Distributed by
From the Dark Political Alleys to the Light of Independent Media and then Dependent Media
If they are trying to decide if they should charge you with a crime, let them investigate the matter on their own time.
We are not required to submit to privacy with those who might possibly be exploiting their position in order to lead us into a dark political alley. So many people get screwed over for speaking without family, friends, witnesses, or lawyers present. With witnesses it is much more difficult for politically deployed agents to twist your testimony around in court. Let them deal with this difficulty, rather than you incurring the difficulty of disproving what your nervous psyche supposedly uttered in some dark political alley.
Whether or NOT one is charged with a crime, when one is alone, one should not speak but verbalize this determination and firmly expect the agents to refrain from intimidation or further questioning. Until one is charged with a crime, it is one’s right to continue walking. If you have the desire to be helpful invite them to a popular coffee spot.
Remember too, that your psychological state is yours to maintain and yours to protect yourself from legal disadvantages.
Torture is an absolute abomination of the Fifth Amendment. If torture is overlooked when people are suspected of terrorism, corrupt politicians will be looking to label dissenters terrorists. I am afraid that this is already happening. Democracy must organize itself to cut off the lifeblood of those who hold such gruesome command.
Those who are illegally detained by US and international authorities rightly ought to be defended in the International Criminal Court, and deserving of restitution. When such crimes become the order of any democratic administration, democracy receives a deadly wound.
Are innocent people serving time while being tortured?
Who is at all interested in preventing government sanctioned torture from coming to his or her neighborhood?
If anyone needs help deciding if I am guilty of demanding that the game of politics must be made to remain transparent and fair at any attention-getting cost, they will have to decide that in court.
Let my accuser choose between meeting with me in court, or joining Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan and I for a long overdue dialogue.
When the great terrorist comes charging at me, what will I be charged with?
Who will scuttle me away into the dark alley where the abomination of desolation begins?
What makes me worthy not to be tortured in some CIA prison, if I will not stand vehemently opposed to such evil? Will I stand up too late?
NOTE: Feel free to incorporate this, or any other of my writings into your own publications at Independent Media (indymedia.org).
There might even be an indymedia.org serving your region. You can publish locally or internationally. Most Independent Media websites are quite lenient with their anonymous publishers; in fact they will even save the crazy rants at a link called ‘Hidden Posts’ or ‘Hidden Articles’.
If you have any problems publishing at the main website, try any of the other regions listed down the left side of its opening URL:
Please bookmark this page now, so that you can come back and compare notes:
Thank you.
Cause those who would orchestrate fear and personal contempt to look to the light of the peacemakers, and the international support thereof.
What is a threat?
We the People, who recognize that we have been made spiritually irresponsible by confusion of doctrine and the necessary twofold aspect of our true liberties, have no choice but to desire more than just a First Amendment right, to remove the abomination from the democratic media temple – the abomination that causes desolation.
We have always been torn by a commanding passion for irreproachable justice. We also have been torn deciding whether or not anonymity would be a more prudent and free platform to carry out our quest to pluck the wings off of the dragon.
The dragon followed the stars, wherever they did shine, but now without its wings, the poor thing must slither back into the garden – lest truth should stomp on its head.
At this point, God will still not be reduced to suppresser, but give mercy to those who confess that they too were confused by Babylon – that crafty old whore of collective conscience.
You are marked if you contribute to the suppression of others. You are marked if you live heavily burdened, because you suppress your third eye. Without knowing so, humankind has been spiritually irresponsible and so strangely afraid of the marvelous wonders that lie in store.
“Come”, let us truly reason together and seal up the serpent and the dragon and the beasts that they have brought alive, in their traditions of death and crosses and other such deterrents of dialogue...
Evil has nothing to fear, but the inability to cause fear.
Babylon is falling very, very quickly. Let us open the other “eye of Horus” and escape the wrath of blindness.
Let us put that blinding fruit back in its place and condemn that old serpent for telling us that it would open our eyes.
What shall We the People have? Shall we endure a great tribulation, or worldwide celebration? Go ask Bob Geldof, or Bono, or any other of these Bad Boys – and GIRLS!
Let the Godhood, that we have not known, be merciful unto us all… Amen and AMEN.
Messiah is not a “someone” that the dragon can destroy. Messiah is a song of Jubilee.
Messiah is not something that the serpent can deploy. Messiah is a song of Jubilee.
The dragon guards the serpents’ diddle, so the prophet must write a riddle.
What is libel? Who should be sheltered by libel?
What is a threat? Who should be sheltered from threats? Pat Robertson? George Bush? Hugo Chavez? (Did you notice the polite ordering of names?) Should the Council for National Policy be sheltered? Stephen Harper? Or should we be more concerned about a world conscience that is being subjected to the terrorism of haphazard politics and religion, and the flawed laws upon which they hinge?
Let us cut the crap, stop looking for a scapegoat, and get to the dialogue of liberty and justice for all nations which have been intermingled under this foolish umbrella the keeps the rains of G_d from nurturing our thirsting universal spirit.
Latin, libellus “little book”
Open Letter to President G.W. Bush, Pat Robertson and the Council for National Policy:
You People would have us think that democracy needs to be rescued from the state, but in the interest of the oppressed multitudes, as history can testify, democracy needs to be rescued from theocracy. What has changed in the last two thousand years?
You People hide behind a veil while you chip away at the wall separating church and state. This is why You People gather in some secret “holy place” three times yearly, to devise plans – not to educate the public as a 501 (c) 3 charity.
Your Mother is Babylon. She is a tax shelter. She is a shelter of serpents and the mighty merchants of the Earth. This is why You People keep that Old Whore on life-support. Through censorship, humiliation, threats of libel, or fear of crucifixion, You People hold back the publicity that would tie a millstone around Her neck and cast Her into Hell. What has changed in the last two thousand years?
To be mightier than the sword, the pen must be mightier than the blue pencil. This is why prophets write riddles, and false prophets like You People at the Council for National Policy are unable to interpret them.
Given the right incentive, You People will back down from your religiously disguised tyranny without raising the sword. Moreover, without raising the sword, the right incentive will appear to You People.
You People will not come forward and defend your Harlot Mother in court, and thereby incriminate yourselves before the world, but abuse some constitutional amendment to protect your sorry souls from judgment.
Libel, from Latin libellus “little book”
Let us now dedicate our honor of unity and jubilee to the late Pope John Paul II, and invite Pope Benedict XVI to help us empower our throng, in a march away from the shelter of Babylon and every detestable Reich that She brings upon humankind.
Cause those who would orchestrate fear and personal contempt to look to the light of the peacemakers, and the international support thereof.
Welcome to our literary conquest of sealing the religious world’s varying versions of self-fulfilling catastrophe, that they will not shut what has been opened or open what is about to be closed. They hereby are invited to immediately take a stand for their faith and charity, lest they be found without hope of washing the blood off theirs hands. The sealing of Time is imminent.
Hear the thunder of God.
I thank the incredibly ‘magical’ powers of our universal Godhood for providing writ of justice - in reversal of time. I should never have doubted to accept election – yet I did, somehow believe that providence was with me. Amen…
Now, before the big ‘Christian’ antichrist pickers come out to the media heavens , let it be curtailed herein.
“From whence cometh Antichrist?”
The coming of Messiah is supposed to be seen from the four corners of the earth, so how can or will Antichrist attempt to steal the show and deceive the masses into resisting the other masses protecting the Messiahs’ coming?
I resist the resistance of light and justice, and I resist self-fulfilling prophecies of doom.
Antichrist will be helpless in resistance to the light that shines in the dark places on this earth.
~yezbok drahcir / richard kobzey
Show us some Intelligent Redesign of Religion, and we will show you Intelligent Design.
Religious Torture
When the false prophet stands up to speak, he accuses the enlightened one of attempting to fulfill written prophecy.
When the false prophet stands up to speak, he closes his eyes and ears lest he should see for himself that the messianic need not wait for written words to become manifest.
When the false prophet stands up to speak, the eyes and the ears of his congregations remain closed.
When the false prophet stands up to speak, he incites tribulation, whereas the enlightened one stands up to speak so that the days of written prophecies will be shortened and death’s sting will no longer wear out the saints of the Most High.
When the enlightened one stands up to speak, he will arrive at the judgment throne before the Accuser is able to.
When the enlightened one stands up to speak, he publicly invites the false prophet to join him before the judgment throne and the congregations of the differing peoples’.
When the enlightened one who is protected by the wings of providence stands up to speak, the eyes and the ears of the world become opened.
FORWARD THE JUDGMENT
FORWARD THE JUDGMENT 23.Dec.2005 09:22
.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1792371.php FORWARD THE JUDGMENT
FORWARD THE JUDGMENT
For The Gospel of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
PREFACE:
(1) I will say “Iranian secret planners” instead of “Iran”, because I must distinguish Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from hard-working liberator friends like CNN’s Christian Amanpour.
(2) When I speak of Iran, I do so with compassionate regard for their collective peace, security and respect in the civilized modern world.
(3) When I speak of Islam, I speak against the hard right that by no merit continue to escape judgment and defeat – not unlike the “Christian” Pat Robertson and the tax-exempt Council for National Policy in the United States of America.
“An eagle with one wing spirals down to its demise.”
The MESSAGE:
With Moslem muscle, in an archetypically international fashion, Iranian secret planners are making war with the Christian nations that have become too friendly with Israel.
By infiltrating Iraq first, then making Saddam Hussein and his resistance to Shiites their scapegoat, Iranian secret planners have moved their own warfare to another sovereign nation, in order to escape their own accountability and bloodshed.
Iranian secret planners have turned Iraq into the spawning grounds of terrorism, and now they are poised to exploit democracy through Iraqi elections. As President Bush has demonstrated, democracy can be rendered powerless after Election Day.
Iran's president will stop making a mockery of Islam and stop warring with Christians and Jews, lest he be declared the antichrist of the ages. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ought to watch his anti-Semitic tongue, lest the Jewish, Christian and Moslem world call upon the entire world to cut his theocracy off at the root - just as the American’s will do with theocrats like the Pat Robertson, the Council for National Policy and their infiltration of Canada through Stephen Harper’s agenda in hiding. FORWARD THE JUDGMENT!
Saddam Hussein’s Defense Might Be the Court’s Offence:
Saddam Hussein’s grievance might be against Iran and worldwide political exploitation of religion. He could argue that Iranian Shiites and American Conservatives have no business devising the entering of a sovereign nation to remove the leader whom they together have put into such a perilous situation.
With a blue veil and a media time delay, the powers above him keep the testimony of Saddam Hussein under wraps. They would rather sentence him to martyrdom, than remove the same veil that his sympathizers wish to remove.
In all fairness, should we hide behind the veil of independent media and witness against George Bush, or stand in front of its veil and witness against Saddam Hussein?
Bible Study for Bible Thumpers:
There is one thing that we do stand against, which is exercised by virtually all organized religions. We will incriminate every one of them for being under the tax shelter of ‘Babylon’.
The Lamsa Peshitta (Aramaic version of the Holy Bible) deems it unnecessary to use differing words for the word ‘shelter’. See Revelation 18:2 You will notice that the entire chapter mentions Babylon’s adultery with the merchants of the earth seven times, in verses 3, 7, 9, 11, 15, 19, and 23.
Also make a Google note of the fact that the word libel comes from Latin for ‘a little book’]
It will ever remain our mission to incriminate religious leaders who partake of tax exemption, and use the lame excuse that it keeps government out of their affairs. For those who invoke the First Amendment to keep government out, while invoking the same amendment to involve themselves in directing government, may they soon find their balls in a vice – with the hands of the world resting on the tension pin.
Let us demand that only secular charities remain tax-exempt, thereby limiting political domination by religious idealists.
Hopefully soon, the nations of this earth will see how the ultimate oppressors have been hiding behind the veil of religion and prospering through exploits.
Judas betrayed Christ and Paul betrayed Christianity - and Junior betrayed America.
~ The Seventh Degree Messenger Gang
FORWARD THE JUDGMENT