OVO

But are there ultimate explanations? The doctrine which I have called ‘essentialism’ amounts to the view that science must seek ultimate explanations in terms of essences: if we can explain the behaviour of a thing in terms of its essence – of its essential properties – then no further question can be raised, and none need be raised (except perhaps the theological question of the Creator of the essences). Thus Descartes believed that he had explained physics in terms of the essence of a physical body which, he taught, was extension; and some Newtonians, following Roger Cotes, believed that the essence of matter was its inertia and its power to attract other matter, and that Newton’s theory could be derived from, and thus ultimately explained by, these essential properties of all matter. Newton himself was of a different opinion. It was a hypothesis concerning the ultimate or essentialist causal explanation of gravity itself which he had in mind when he wrote in the Scholium generale at the end of the Principia: ‘So far I have explained the phenomena… by the force of gravity, but I have not yet ascertained the cause of gravity itself… and I do not arbitrarily [or ad hoc] invent hypotheses.’

I do not believe in the essentialist doctrine of ultimate explanation. In the past, critics of this doctrine have been, as a rule, instrumentalists: they interpreted scientific theories as nothing but instruments for prediction, without any explanatory power. I do not agree with them either. But there is a third possibility, a ‘third view’, as I have called it. It has been well described as a ‘modified essentialism’ – with emphasis upon the word ‘modified’.

This ‘third view’ which I uphold modifies essentialism in a radical manner. First of all, I reject the idea of an ultimate explanation: I maintain that every explanation may be further explained, by a theory or conjecture of a higher degree of universality. There can be no explanation which is not in need of a further explanation, for none can be a self-explanatory description of an essence (such as an essentialist definition of body, as suggested by Descartes). Secondly, I reject all what-is questions: questions asking what a thing is, what is its essence, or its true nature. For we must give up the view, characteristic of essentialism, that in every single thing there is an essence, an inherent nature or principle (such as the spirit of wine in wine), which necessarily causes it to be what it is, and thus to act as it does. This animistic view explains nothing; but it has led essentialists (like Newton) to shun relational properties, such as gravity, and to believe, on grounds felt to be a priori valid, that a satisfactory explanation must be in terms of inherent properties (as opposed to relational properties). The third and last modification of essentialism is this. We must give up the view, closely connected with animism (and characteristic of Aristotle as opposed to Plato), that it is the essential properties inherent in each individual or singular thing which may be appealed to as the explanation of this thing’s behaviour. For this view completely fails to throw any light whatever on the question why different individual things should behave in like manner. If it is said, ‘because their essences are alike’, the new question arises: why should there not be as many different essences as there are different things?

Plato tried to solve precisely this problem by saying that like individual things are the offspring, and thus copies, of the same original ‘Form’, which is therefore something ‘outside’ and ‘prior’ and ‘superior’ to the various individual things; and indeed, we have as yet no better theory of likeness. Even today, we appeal to their common origin if we wish to explain the likeness of two men, or of a bird and a fish, or of two beds, or two motor cars, or two languages, or two legal procedures; that is to say, we explain similarity in the main genetically; and if we make a metaphysical system out of this, it is liable to become a historicist philosophy. Plato’s solution was rejected by Aristotle; but since Aristotle’s version of essentialism does not contain even a hint of a solution, it seems that he never quite grasped the problem.

By choosing explanations in terms of universal laws of nature, we offer a solution to precisely this last (Platonic) problem. For we conceive all individual things, and all singular facts, to be subject to these laws. The laws (which in their turn are in need of further explanation) thus explain regularities or similarities of individual things or singular facts or events. And these laws are not inherent in the singular things. (Nor are they Platonic ideas outside the world.) Laws of nature are conceived, rather, as (conjectural) descriptions of the structural properties of nature – of our world itself.

Here then is the similarity between my own view (the ‘third view’) and essentialism; although I do not think that we can ever describe, by our universal laws, an ultimate essence of the world, I do not doubt that we may seek to probe deeper and deeper into the structure of our world or, as we might say, into properties of the world that are more and more essential, or of greater and greater depth.

Every time we proceed to explain some conjectural law or theory by a new conjectural theory of a higher degree of universality, we are discovering more about the world, trying to penetrate deeper into its secrets. And every time we succeed in falsifying a theory of this kind, we make a new important discovery. For these falsifications are most important. They teach us the unexpected; and they reassure us that, although our theories are made by ourselves, although they are our own inventions, they are none the less genuine assertions about the world; for they can clash with something we never made.

From Ratio, December 1957.  Reprinted in Objective Knowledge.  Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986

via youtube.

Mr. Condell says (0:22 – 0:53): “People keep framing this as a religious freedom issue.  But there’s a difference between practicing your religion, which everyone has a right to do, and rubbing your religion in people’s faces as a triumphalist political statement, which is what’s happening here.  I’d be interested to know just how bad an insult has to be before it’s no longer protected by the First Amendment.  After all, the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms.  But in practice you need a permit to walk around packing hardware, and not everyone can get one despite the Second Amendment.”

I enjoy Mr. Condell‘s videos very much and have posted quite a few at ovo127.com.  I have not always agreed with everything he says or how he says it, but the agreement was general enough to post the videos without comment.  This video is an exception.  Here Mr. Condell confuses what is right (moral, respectful, virtuous) with rights (legal status).  And Mr. Condell appears to be suggesting that insults, if they are bad enough, do not deserve First Amendment protection.  I disagree on both counts.  What is legal and what is illegal are not necessarily what is right or what is wrong.  And the most vile of insults are deserving of First Amendment protection.  Otherwise, enjoy the show.

One of the great misfortunes of men who do not like democracy is surely that Hitler began his political action with nine comrades in the basement of a beer hall. Too many excellent young men have concluded that with a half-dozen pals and a mimeograph machine they were also going to seize power. Clarence, in spite of his excess enthusiasm as a neophyte, was a courageous and estimable young man. He had dared to sacrifice his career and, his comfort in order to protest violently against the Nuremberg trial, an indignation which was unwise at that time. He gave himself over entirely, without money, without support, to a difficult and hopeless apostolate. One does not meet very often men of that stamp. Why is it necessary that nearly all of them have in themselves a predisposition to a jealous and implacable despotism? I have known, after Clarence, very many “fascists,” for the race is not dead. Some of them had boots, they were familiar with the runes, and they camped out on the night of the solstice in order to sing under the stars the beautiful solemn songs of their ancestors. The others did not have boots, they held up their skinny reformers’ heads severely, they wore glasses, they collected cards, and they made furious speeches. All were poor, they believed, they fought, they detested lying and injustice.

quoted in Dreamer of the Day by Kevin Coogan.

Some groups and individuals oppose legal access to same sex marriage.  This includes homosexual groups and individuals, some from the left, some from the right.  I predict they will be displeased if legal access to same sex marriage occurs in the United States.  There is no right to happiness.

According to the General Accounting Office [pdf], “as of 31 December 2003 [there are] a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges.”  Due to the Defense of Marriage Act, these federal statutory provisions are available only to hetero married couples.  If legal access to same-sex marriage occurs in the United States, some or all of these federal statutory provisions will have to change.  I predict they will not change at the same time. I predict that they will not change to the same degree or in the same way.  I predict that sometimes a federal statutory provisions will cease to exist rather than be extended to same-sex couples.  I predict that they will not all change at the federal level, but rather at both the state and the federal level and that they will not be uniform in all states.  During the time these federal statutory provisions change, some same-sex couples will lose out while other same-sex couples will benefit.  Attentiveness now to these benefits, rights, and privileges might make their transitions more smooth.

Interracial hetero marriage was banned in some states as late as 1967.  The Loving v Virginia decision of the Supreme Court that year found miscegenation laws to be unconstitutional. Interracial marriage has been legal for over forty years. But it is not the case that interracial marriages occur with the same frequency as same-race marriages. According to the US Census for 2000, around 97% of whites married whites and around 96% of blacks married blacks. I predict these statistics will remain constant if legal access to same sex marriage occurs in the United States.  The State has no role in encouraging or discouraging marriage diversity.

Citizenship in the United States can be conferred by marriage.  I predict that legal access to same sex marriage will confer citizenship to some men and women who otherwise could not be citizens.  I predict this will be a small number and will not influence society much at all.  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Domestic violence occurs among same-sex couples as well as hetero couples.  According to the American Bar Association [pdf], “seven states define domestic violence in a way that specifically excludes same-sex victims.” I predict that legal access to same sex marriage will include an increase of reports of domestic violence.  This increase in reports of domestic violence may be caused by a change in the ability to report domestic violence as much as or more than an increase in actual domestic violence. Domestic violence among same-sex couples does not occur with the same frequency among all sexes.  According to the U. S. Department of Justice, 11.4% of same-sex cohabiting women report being victimized by a female partner while 15.4% of same-sex cohabiting men reported being victimized by a male partner. Men raping men occurs much more frequently than men raping women.  According to the U. S. Census Bureau, 78.3% of murder victims are male and 21.4% of murder victims are female.  According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics [pdf] 65.3% of murders involved a male offender and a male victim while 2.4% of murders involved a female offender and a female victim.  I predict that legal access to same sex marriage will show more domestic violence among men than among women.  Acknowledging a difference between men and women and funding State services accordingly might lessen the problem of domestic violence.

Same sex couples cannot conceive children.  Same sex couples who wish to raise children are limited in their ability to adopt in the United States.  Some states allow it, some forbid it, and federal law has said only that an adoption in one state must be recognized in other states.  (Compare this with the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law stating same-sex marriage in one state need not be recognized in other states.)  Many states that forbid adoption by same sex couples base their law on same sex couples being unable to legally marry.  I predict legal access to same sex marriage in the United States will cause changes in adoption laws.  I predict some states will make it no more or less difficult for same sex couples to adopt than for hetero couples to adopt, while other states will make all adoptions more difficult to make adoption more difficult for same sex couples.  Same sex couples who wish to raise children are limited in their ability to use birth surrogates or artificial insemination in the United States.  Legal limits on birth surrogates exist for hetero couples as well and vary by state.  There is no legal limit on artificial insemination but some insurance companies will not compensate single women who use artificial insemination.  I predict some states will make it no more or less difficult for same sex couples to use birth surrogates or artificial insemination, while other states will make using birth surrogates or getting artificial insemination more difficult to make these procedures more difficult for same sex couples.  I predict the number of children adopted will increase if legal access to same sex marriage occurs.  State by state differences in adoption, birth surrogates, and artificial insemination will be similar to the legality of abortion.  Abortion is legal at the national level but access to services varies by state and is not a service the state is compelled to offer.  Adoption laws should be inclusive of same sex parents.

Advocates of legal access to same sex marriage want treatment under the law identical to hetero marriage, and that includes legal access to divorce.  Making predictions about legal access to same sex marriage must include predictions about legal access to same sex divorce.  Statistics relating to hetero divorce have a limited value in making predictions about same sex divorce. According to the National Center for Health Statistics [pdf] “Approximately 61 percent of the divorces in 1988 were petitioned by the wife, 32 percent by the husband, and 7 percent by the husband and wife jointly.” More hetero couples are divorced today than in the past, and differences exist between the percentage of divorced men and divorced women.  According to the US Census Bureau: “Of the first marriages for women from 1955 to 1959, about 79 percent marked their 15th anniversary, compared with only 57 percent for women who married for the first time from 1985 to 1989. People born in the leading edge of the baby boom experienced high divorce rates in the 1970s and 1980s. About 38 percent of men born from 1945 to 1954 and 41 percent of women in the same age group had been divorced by 2004.”  The trend for women to initiate divorce more than men is also found in Denmark, where legal access to same sex marriage has been available since 1989. Male same sex married couples in Denmark seek a divorce 14% of the time, while female same sex married couples in Denmark seek a divorce 23% of the time. I predict legal access to same sex marriage in the United States will reveal that women seek divorce more than men in both hetero and same sex marriages.  According to the US Census Bureau [pdf], among hetero divorced couples in 2008 56.9% of mothers were awarded child support and custody while 40.4% of fathers were awarded child support and custody.  I predict custody and child support issues among divorcing same sex couples will incur less legal fees and occupy less court time among men than women.  I claim that some discontent to legal access to same sex marriage is caused by discontent with hetero marriage.  Discontent with hetero marriage comes in part from the prevalence of divorce.  No-fault divorce has existed in every state since 1985.  Discontent with hetero marriage comes in part from the disparity of who initiates divorce and who benefits from divorce.  Women initiate divorce more often than men, and benefit from divorce more often than men.  Divorce and women’s rights are largely spoken of as having only benefits, never any cost.  Divorce and women’s rights are largely spoken of as bringing about only equality, never inequality.  For these reasons, what might have been a debate about women and divorce has become a debate about homosexuals and marriage.  I predict legal access to same sex marriage will not bring about the former debate.  Acknowledging a difference between men and women and funding State services accordingly might lessen the problem of divorce.

See also: Three Predictions Part One, ‘Who’s That Girl?’

Mail Online: Claudy Bombing Priest James Chesney, Cover-up Agreed by Police, Ministers and Church

The British government and the Catholic Church colluded to cover up Father Jim Chesney’s role in the 1972 bombing that killed nine people, it was revealed today.

Salt Lake Tribune: LDS Church Sued for Baptism for the Dead Injury

In a civil suit filed in 3rd District Court on Wednesday, Daniel Dastrup claims he suffered a severe herniated disk in his lumbar spine after performing about 200 baptisms on Aug. 25, 2007. The then 25-year-old claims some of the young men and women he completely immersed in water in the name of the dead weighed as much as 250 pounds.

BV Black Spin: Martin Luther King Jr.s Niece Calls Gay Marriage ‘Genocide’

The niece of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. addressed a crowd at a National Organization for Marriage rally last weekend in Atlanta. Dr. Alveda King passionately addressed the issue of same-sex marriage, stating that it would lead to “extinction” and “genocide.”

Jeannie Nuss: Bikini-Clad Strippers Protest Church in Rural Ohio

The strippers, fueled by Cheetos and nicotine, are protesting a fundamentalist Christian church whose Bible-brandishing congregants have picketed the club where they work. The dancers roll up with signs carrying messages adapted from Scripture, such as “Do unto others as you would have done unto you,” to counter church members who for four years have photographed license plates of patrons and asked them if their mothers and wives know their whereabouts. [also]

AFP: US Catholic Church Tarred with New Child Sex Abuse Scandal

The Roman Catholic Church in the United States has become embroiled in a new pedophilia scandal with six women and one man alleging sexual abuse by a priest over three decades. The lawsuit filed Wednesday in Oakland, California accused Father Stephen Kiesle of acts of sexual abuse between 1972 and 2001, and alleged that Catholic Church officials knew of the crimes but did not stop them.

Anne Rice: ‘Today I Quit Being A Christian’

For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being ‘Christian’ or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.

Reuters: Austrian Churchgoers Quit in Record Numbers

A record 100,000 Austrians are expected to leave the Roman Catholic Church this year after abuse scandals which have badly damaged its image, a newspaper reported on Tuesday. Some 57,000 quit the church in the first six months of the year, Austrian daily Der Standard reported, citing figures from local state authorities. This is already more than the full-year total for 2009 when 53,216 walked out.

Part of a series that never ends [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10][11] and etc.  May Christianity wither away under the twin suns of reason and scorn.

Jim Goad: Planet Islam

For the past 1000 years, the Muslim world has given us almost nothing in the way of math or science. It has, however, given us a slave trade that predated the Atlantic slave trade by seven centuries and shackled nearly twice as many black Africans as the Europeans did – a fact that continues to get lost on black Americans who cozy up to Islam.

Yahoo! News: Afghan Girls Fall Ill After Apparent Gas Poisoning

About 40 schoolgirls became ill and were taken to hospital after a suspected gas poisoning in the Afghan capital Wednesday, another apparent attack by hardline Islamists opposed to female education.

SSC Times: Alshabaab Cuts Tongue

The Mother of Ahmed Ali Shuuke has told the media that her son receives all food through injection and according to her statement he gets fed using the needles often used for injecting Camel herds. [includes photograph of a man with his tongue cut out.]

New York Times: In Bold Display, Taliban Order Stoning Deaths

The Taliban on Sunday ordered their first public executions by stoning since their fall from power nine years ago, killing a young couple who had eloped, according to Afghan officials and a witness.

BBC: Taliban ‘Kill Adulterous Afghan Couple’ in Marketplace

Two witnesses from Mullah Quli told the BBC that the Taliban asked the villagers to attend the stoning through an announcement on loudspeakers in the mosque.

Reuters: Iran Stoning Case Lawyer in Turkey, Seeking Asylum

The lawyer who defended a woman sentenced to death by stoning in Iran is in Istanbul and has applied for asylum in a third country, a source at the United Nations’ refugee agency said Thursday.

canada.com: Muslim Women’s Group Opposes Addition of Honour Killings to Criminal Code

The Canadian Council of Muslim Women opposes the addition of “honour killings” to the Criminal Code on the grounds “murder is murder” and a special category could stigmatize new immigrants and some ethnic or religious groups.

Middle East Quarterly: Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings

Although Sikhs and Hindus do sometimes commit such murders, honor killings, both worldwide and in the West, are mainly Muslim-on-Muslim crimes. In this study, worldwide, 91 percent of perpetrators were Muslims. In North America, most killers (84 percent) were Muslims, with only a few Sikhs and even fewer Hindus perpetrating honor killings; in Europe, Muslims comprised an even larger majority at 96 percent while Sikhs were a tiny percentage. In Muslim countries, obviously almost all the perpetrators were Muslims. With only two exceptions, the victims were all members of the same religious group as their murderers.

All articles continue at links. Part of a series that never ends… [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] and etc. Cutting out a man’s tongue is in compliance with Islam. Stoning those accused of adultery is in compliance with Islam. Honor killings are in compliance with Islam.  These evils co-exist with Islam, and I’ll venture a guess they are related.  Perhaps the secularization and reform of Islam will cause a reduction in these evils.  Pending the complete withering away of Islam under the twin suns of reason and scorn, I’d like to give that a try.

Sometimes people scowl at me when I talk about religions like Islam or Christianity withering away to nothing.  But the evidence is on my side.  All religions die out, given enough time.  If we learn from our mistakes (if) then religion itself may also wither away, given enough time.  If.

From the 1906 book The Outbursts of Everett True by A. D. Condo and J. W. Raper. With thanks to Barnacle Press.

For we may distinguish two main types of government. The first type consists of governments of which we can get rid without bloodshed – for example, by way of general elections; that is to say, the social institutions provide means by which the rulers may be dismissed by the ruled, and the social traditions ensure that these institutions will not easily be destroyed by those who are in power. The second type consists of governments which the ruled cannot get rid of except by way of a successful revolution – that is to say, in most cases, not at all. I suggest the term ‘democracy’ as a short-hand label for a government of the first type, and the term ‘tyranny’ or ‘dictatorship’ for the second. This, I believe, corresponds closely to traditional usage. But l wish to make clear that no part of my argument depends on the choice of these labels; and should anybody reverse this usage (as is frequently done nowadays), then I should simply say that I am in favour of what he calls ‘tyranny’, and object to what he calls ‘democracy’ ; and I should reject as irrelevant any attempt to discover what ‘democracy’ ‘really’ or ‘essentially’ means, for example, by translating the term into ‘the rule of the people.’ (For although ‘the people’ may influence the actions of their rulers by the threat of dismissal, they never rule themselves in any concrete, practical sense.)

If we make use of the two labels as suggested, then we can now describe, as the principle of a democratic policy, the proposal to create, develop, and protect, political institutions for the avoidance of tyranny. This principle does not imply that we can ever develop institutions of this kind which are faultless or foolproof; or which ensure that the policies adopted by a democratic government will be right or good or wise – or even necessarily better or wiser than the policies adopted by a benevolent tyrant. (Since no such assertions are made, the paradox of democracy is avoided.) What may be said, however, to be implied in the adoption of the democratic principle is the conviction that the acceptance of even a bad policy in a democracy (as long as we can work for a peaceful change) is preferable to the submission to a tyranny, however wise or benevolent. Seen in this light, the theory of democracy is not based upon the principle that the majority should rule; rather, the various equalitarian methods of democratic control, such as general elections and representative government, are to be considered as no more than well-tried and, in the presence of a widespread traditional distrust of tyranny, reasonably effective institutional safe-guards against tyranny, always open to improvement, and even providing methods for their own improvement.

He who accepts the principle of democracy in this sense is therefore not bound to look upon the result of a democratic vote as an authoritative expression of what is right. Although he will accept a decision of the majority, for the sake of making the democratic institutions work, he will feel tree to combat it by democratic means, and to work for its revision. And should he live to see the day when the majority vote destroys the democratic institutions, then this sad experience will tell him only that there does not exist a foolproof method of avoiding tyranny. But it need not weaken his decision to fight tyranny, nor will it expose his theory as inconsistent.

From The Open Society and its Enemies Volume 1. Princeton University Press 1966

If you pick up some crap book about the history of punk rock, chances are there will be about 90 pages dedicated to Joe Strummer’s jackets but only two sentences about Crass. This is despite them selling millions of records, singlehandedly creating the DIY punk blueprint, and maintaining their hard-line libertarian and anarchy principles even as they reach their mid-60s today. A lot of you reading this will be aware of their logo and the fact that they were a punk band, but not a lot of people know their actual story. Because it’s so inspirational and so “anti-music” (in the sense that it was a total revolt against the established music industry of the time) we feel that everybody with even a passing interest in punk rock should hear it.

And so we interviewed founding members Penny Rimbaud and Steve Ignorant for a brief history of the group and to procure their ideas surrounding this issue’s theme. During the talks between myself and Penny that preceded this interview I discovered that the unthinkable has happened and that Crass, the most anti-authoritarian, anarchy-endorsing free spirits in the history of punk music, are on the verge of going to Crown Court to ask lawyers and judges to intervene in a huge row over some remastered CDs. Despite our efforts to include all sides of the story here, a couple of former members of Crass declined to participate. [...]

What was the reason the band folded?
We always all had the idea that ’84 was the mythical, Orwellian thing. And I think it largely folded because I was becoming interested in something broader than punk. Our interests were going out, and really it was after we’d done that last gig in Aberdare which was so disillusioning and so sad, which was the fucking result of Thatcher’s vicious Britain. And I think all of us felt that jumping up and down on a stage saying “No more war!” was a joke in light of the poverty and desperation we saw that night.

What happened?
It was a benefit gig for the sacked miners in Aberdare. We went down in the van as we usually did, loaded with bins of food because people were literally starving in those villages. It was inevitably raining, which it always does in those valleys, and it was just so sad, the sense of destruction and the sense of despair. There were lots of men who didn’t know what they were doing anymore. Lots of men who just didn’t know what had happened. It was horrible. And the gig was great and everyone enjoyed it, but it was still just so sad. It was the next morning that Andy came through and said, “I’m leaving the band, Pen,” and I didn’t react because I thought,“Fine, I completely understand.” So he sort of initiated what I think would’ve inevitably happened anyway. It was 1984 and we had said we were going to end then, which is what the countdown was all about in our catalog numbers. We’d said everything that was to be said in that context, fucking hell. The fact that it’s still just as pertinent today is indication that nothing’s changed. You can’t say more than what we’ve said, really, except possibly offering a few answers. But you know, I’m still looking for them. And they’re certainly not ones that will be found in the context of punk rock. I think within the context of punk rock we did everything we possibly could.

We’d been doing it since 1977. It had been all those years, nonstop. We lived at Dial House, the doors were always open, and who we were onstage wasn’t any different from who we were in life. It wasn’t like we could come off tour and have a week’s holiday. We were doing it all ourselves and running the other label, Corpus Christi. Pen was always in the studio; I was doing vocals with Conflict or something like that and writing songs for other people. And it wasn’t like a nine-to-five job. It went on and on forever. When Margaret Thatcher came in, it all went up a notch. It was endless. Looking at horrible images, living in a horrible time, dealing with things like the Falklands War, the miners’ strikes, unemployment. It was a horrible time. There was violence at gigs; I was wearing black clothes all the time. I got fed up. If I went out for a drink there was an unspoken responsibility I always felt that if I went and got drunk I couldn’t show it. If I fell over in the gutter it wasn’t just me falling over in the gutter, it was Crass. So there was this responsibility to not fuck it up.

A lot of “punk” was being proud of falling in the gutter. People would pretend to do it even if they weren’t drunk. What made Crass different?
Well, we thought that the message was important enough to make people come and listen and buy the records. We couldn’t shit all over that by being idiots in the pub afterward.

So it was anti everything that rock ’n’ roll stood for.
Yeah. I never got all that. I have been around people who should know better. I mean, throwing a TV out the window, nothing new. I have seen people throw food around, and that really annoys me. I mean, someone has taken the time to cook the stuff. I have seen people onstage giving it all large about “nonviolence,” and the next minute they are in the street fighting with someone who comes from Manchester because they are from down south. Complete and utter bullshit. I have never been into that rock ’n’ roll image. Yeah, you get a bit of adulation; fair enough, I can deal with that. But the limousines and paparazzi and all that? You can stick it! Stick it as far as it can go. Bullshit! I have seen musicians who have so many people around them telling them they are great that in the end the idiots actually think they are and that they can tell people what to do.

Did that ever happen to anyone in Crass?
No. But it happened to a couple of close friends of mine. So, in that sense, for us it was never about being a part of a rock ’n’ roll band, though sometimes I did want some of the things associated with it. I wanted the blonde girls and the free drinks, which I never got. The only people I spoke to at gigs were spotty blokes in anoraks asking me about anarchy.

Haha. But that’s what you signed up for. Do you regret that?
I suppose sometimes it’s a little thing, I don’t know. It would have been fun for it to happen now and again. Regret it? Not really, we did what we did. As you said, that’s what I signed up for. It was a commitment; and my own fault, really. [...]

And now you’ve remastered all the albums and Gee’s done new artwork and Southern is going to release it, but that’s all caused a bit of a hullabaloo, right?
Yes, well, in the remastering I’ve been doing of the Crass material, I’ve incorporated stuff which is otherwise only available as bootleg. And why is this stuff only available otherwise in bootleg? It’s because we never bothered to do it ourselves. We’re to blame, not the bootleggers. So what we’ve done now is to sort of reclaim that, give really good sound to it, as good as we can, and then put it out so that if people want our version of it they can buy it. The bootlegs will probably still be there.

I discussed the plan to remaster everything with John in the year that he was ill. I was visiting him once a week or so. We talked a lot, obviously, about the future and that. We fantasized about going in to remaster the entire catalog, remaster a lot of my own works like Acts of Love, do new material, but I have to say that most of the time I knew it was a fantasy because it was quite obvious he wasn’t going to survive. When he died, Southern had a lot of trouble coping with it all and during that time I spent a lot of time worrying about what the fuck was going to happen to our material because with John there’d never been any formalities, nothing had ever been signed, who owned what, what owned who. There was nothing to go by. What I was really worried about was the receivers being called in. I thought, “Well, if Southern goes down, they’re going to go in and all the fucking stuff’s going to get nicked. I want to know what’s ours so we can have it.” I sort of made halfhearted attempts, but really the place was such a fucking mess that I thought, “OK, I’ll back off and let them sort whatever they need to sort out, and then we’ll go from there.” That coincided with trying to stop the house being taken over by a lot of property investors, so I got very embroiled in a big legal battle.

Who has the house now?
We do.

You nearly didn’t?
Yeah, you know, several times over. During the era of the band, we could have sat down and said, “Look, we don’t own this house. Why don’t we buy it?” We could easily have done it, but it never even occurred to us. Every time we got any money we were like,“Oh, we’ve got a grand! Let’s go ask those people down the road if they want to put out a fanzine!”

It was the same when we did fucking gigs, actually, which I’m not so pleased about. Like we’d go and do a gig, pick out a place somewhere, hand all the money over to people in need or charities or whatever, and then realize we hadn’t left enough money to buy supper that evening. We were that stupid, seriously. We didn’t look after ourselves. If we had looked after ourselves, the house would’ve been ours and Gee and I wouldn’t be living in what’s close to poverty most of the time. We’d have looked after it, but we didn’t, and that’s because we weren’t interested and we’re still not interested, so I’m not complaining, it’s just that’s a fact. [...]

I was a 35-year-old man when a 17-year-old boy turned up and wanted to form a band, and the band that he and I formed together denied him everything he should’ve had. He should’ve been fucking the groupies, snorting coke, and having a laugh. He never had a laugh; he never had a fucking adolescence. It was denied him by our hard line. I realize that now, I didn’t realize it at the time. I thought we were having fun, but Jesus what fun it was. I mean, I suppose I could get more fun out of it because my fun has always been more cerebral and intellectual, so for me some of the conflict that we created with the state and that sort of stuff was fun. But Steve wanted to be having proper fun, and I can completely understand that now. And also I can’t actually believe that he is so underappreciated. I think the guy was brilliant, among the best of the punk voices.

Why do you think Pete is so opposed to the rereleases?
When the band broke up and we no longer had that common ground, it increasingly became obvious that there were distinct differences between the various members. That didn’t rest well, and so certain conflicts started developing in the house. Notably I would say between those who didn’t see the folding of the band as a collapse of security, the individuals who were secure in their own being and quite happily got on with whatever it was they might be doing or not doing, whereas another part of the band was worried, like: “Where’s the future now? Our security has suddenly been taken from beneath our feet.” I think that was the root of the conflict, but it became expressed in lifestyle arguments. I created this house as a center for anything anyone wanted to do with it, in a way. It wasn’t for me to define, it wasn’t for me to judge, it wasn’t… I’d found the house, I was quite happy to finance it, and everyone could do what they wanted within certain parameters. I’ve since been accused of standing back when I should’ve helped a situation. So the objection that Peter’s making, by his own admittance, is that I would not give support to his criticisms, some of which were probably just, but in large number were bloody infantile or impractical.

Such as?
Well, one infantile one was to not recognize a natural authority. A natural authority is one that produces 65 percent of the material that you’re making a living from. Not for their own ends, but for a genuine belief that there’s a shared purpose here, which is why I wrote all those Crass songs. I don’t take kindly to someone turning around and being critical of that authority when they’re not directly benefiting in the way they want to directly benefit, while at the same time benefiting in all sorts of ways in which they continue to benefit. I don’t think that’s graceful. I think it was infantile to feel that one could change a situation by stamping your foot and being rude. It’s not how to do it. I’m willing to sit and listen if someone is willing to sit and talk, but I’m not willing to be insulted by anyone. I don’t think it’s very graceful of people not to acknowledge that; to live somewhere for seven years, rent free, for fuck all, to use every little iota of space which could’ve been mine in a selfish way, and then to make a big cacophony about it all. [...]

There’s no question that during the period that we lived 15 people in the house with 25 cats there was unbelievable accord. Obviously there were occasional rows about something, but they were very, very rare and we managed somehow. We couldn’t have done what we’d done otherwise. However many albums, all of the stuff, it ran like a machine. We did it at the cost of our emotional lives, and we were very good at it. But when it all ended the emotional baggage wasn’t properly dug out from all the dark holes around the house and dealt with by us. We should have deprogrammed, but we didn’t. We deprogrammed in our own slow way and within that a lot of bitterness formed. [...]

No contracts were ever signed.
There’s no contract, there’s no written anything in the history of Crass and Southern, and there never was between any of the bands that Crass recorded. It was done on trust or it was not done at all. And in fairness to John, I think that was a principle he kept on Corpus Christi. If Pete wants to play the law, in the real sense of the word, it’s a very foolish line to take. If I were to play the law on a 65 percent ownership of the songs of Crass, I could be sitting with a swimming pool just close to us, rather than a cat bowl, and he would have to work a little bit harder at whatever part-time jobs he does now. That’s the truth of it. [...]

When was the last time you saw Pete?
I think it was the week John was dying. He knew he was going to die and I bumped into Pete at the studio, and I said, “Pete, we really need to talk,” so we went over to a café and sat down, and it was cordial enough. I said, “Look, John’s going to die, we need to sort out our material.” He said, “No we don’t, it’ll be all right.” He just wouldn’t even hear of it. [...]

To my mind, the dispute has its root in ideological differences that existed between the individual members of the band. In my understanding, Pete was fundamentally a socialist, and socialists like wagging their fingers at anyone except themselves. He claims to be an anarchist. Well, I claim to be an anarchist, but I’m fundamentally a libertarian and a fierce individualist. I think that does fit into an arena of anarchistic thought. I certainly draw a line at all this stupid anarchistic organization of industry and that sort of stuff, because I’m just not interested. If people want to do that, then I’m not going to criticize them. But frankly, it’s not my thing. My thing is rising with the angels and flying in the sky.

Article continues.

OUTLAW CHRISTIANITY! DEATH TO ALL CHRISTIANS!

The above does not reflect the intention of OVO, and in fact stands opposite to it. The above is provided to feed the presuppositions of those who will not actually read this issue of OVO. Any review of this issue that quotes the words above is likely to have been written by someone who never read beyond them to learn what OVO actually states. This issue of OVO has a purpose, but the likelihood that it will be misrepresented is great enough that a clear statement of what the purpose is not is in order.

OVO does not advocate the criminalization of Christianity. Existing criminal law suffices to address what is harmful, and law is among the least appropriate means of addressing what is merely mistaken. Christians deserve equal sanction by the law, and voluntary and informed activities among consenting adults (including religion) should not be outlawed.
OVO does not advocate the murder of Christians except in self-defense. Because of the potential for legal error, capital punishment is immoral in all cases. War and murder are immoral in all cases except in self-defense. Except in self-defense, it is always immoral to kill (including killing Christians).

OVO does not advocate the replacement of the Christian God with another God, a Goddess, a pantheon of deities, nature worship, or similar substitution. OVO does not advocate worship, be it of the Christian God or any other. To any reader who uses OVO to build up their own superstition: your faith is equally contemptible.

OVO does not criticize Christianity because it does not understand it. Many years research went into this issue, and along the way misunderstandings about Christianity (whether in its favor or against it) were abandoned. OVO criticizes Christianity not because it does not understand it, but because it is worthy of criticism.

OVO does not criticize Christianity because the editor had a traumatic experience with Christianity. The editor had a generally positive experience with Christianity while growing up and has Christian friends today. It is a silent admission of defeat that Christians use this psychological, secular explanation for why someone might criticize their superstition. The editor came to reject Christianity the old fashioned way: by reading the Bible.

OVO is not critical of Christianity because the editor is possessed by Satan, demons or evil spirits. Such ghosts have never existed.

OVO does not criticize Christianity because it is a socialist publication. OVO is not a socialist publication.

OVO does not criticize Christianity because Christianity is false. Christianity is false, but that is not in itself sufficient reason to advocate that it wither away. There are many non-fiction books, films, plays, poems and recordings that are also false but serve to inspire humanity. But these false stories do not claim to be true, are not taught to impressionable children as true, and are not used to support legislation that meddles in the affairs of non-Christians. No one is arguing that the epics of Homer be taught as history; no one is legislating that Aesop’s fables be posted in courtrooms. These stories, though false, serve to inspire those who seek them out and are rightly preserved. It is the secular power of Christianity that is the problem, not merely its falsehood. Christianity does not attempt to identify and lessen its falsehoods: it revels in them as ‘tests of faith.’ Christianity is holding back science and art, culture and philosophy, tools that actually can and actually have improved humanity’s lot in an indifferent Universe.

OVO does not criticize Christianity because it is a good religion perverted to bad ends. It is much more the case that a few good people (Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, perhaps) have perverted the bad religion of Christianity to good ends. All the good done in the name of Christianity could and does occur through entirely secular means. What remains distinctly Christian if such duplication of labor is removed? Threats of eternal damnation, denial of the pleasures and wonders of this short life, confusion and deception. When Christianity has supported individual rights it has done so only after a ‘revelation’ that (a) goes against its own history and (b) miraculously is in harmony with contemporary public opinion. For example, many Christians opposed slavery in the United States; but many more supported slavery and did so for much longer. Even today the Bible contains many passages supporting slavery and not one passage condemning it. Christianity is a slave religion, a misogynist religion, a queer-killing religion, a nonsense religion, but good people keep twisting their bad faith to good ends. Wouldn’t it be better to just do good deeds without wasted efforts to placate an invisible monster that lives in the sky?

OVO does not criticize Christianity to criticize individual Christians. It is often the case that an attack on a person’s unconsidered beliefs is perceived as an attack on their person. If a person’s beliefs are profoundly unconsidered, to merely state that one holds differing beliefs is perceived as an attack. For example, Christians who see other superstitions get equal time in the eyes of the law sometimes complain that their freedom of religion is under attack. Those who hold considered beliefs are secure when challenged and (hopefully) willing to admit error. Those who hold unconsidered beliefs, who repeat what they have been told without deliberation, are more likely to confuse who they are with what they believe. Christianity, like all religions, encourages strong belief but also encourages a lack of consideration. Posturing, bullying and stubbornness are substitutes for consideration of belief among most Christians.

OVO does not criticize Christianity because its claims contradict the evidence of our senses, science, history, archeology, astronomy, mathematics, common sense and the like. It is true that Christianity is incompatible with all of these, but science progresses by way of challenges to all our claims. If Christianity challenges the evidence of our senses, all the better: let the challenges be considered and considered again. If the Bible contradicts science, science can be tested to see if the Bible has a better explanation for reality. Where the Bible holds true, the Bible holds true. Where the Bible is found to be false, it should either be re-written or re-classified as folk tales. Resolving contradictions between the Bible and the evidence of our senses can be of value to us all, and so the contradictions between the Bible and the evidence of our senses are not in themselves why the Bible should be criticized. Internal contradictions in the Bible, and holding on to falsehood when falsehood has been identified, are worthy of the greatest of criticisms.

OVO does not criticize Christianity as an argument for atheism. The editor is preparing an argument for atheism that is distinct from this argument against Christianity.

OVO does not criticize Christianity because Jesus Christ was a good person whose followers have gone astray, or because we do not have the secret teachings of Jesus, or because Jesus was a complex person with both good and bad qualities. Jesus never existed.

In 1991, the editor published A Call to Heresy on a BBS in Knoxville, Tennessee USA. The document found its way onto BBS’ around the world as well as other formats, including an Internet domain in Hong Kong and a CD-ROM of public domain texts published by Palm Computers. Various editions of the text can be found on the Internet today. Some of the research done for that text has found a new home here in OVO 16 AntiChrist.

OVO criticizes the Bible. Some Christians say that it is an error to overly attend to what the Bible says, and one should rely on the Bible as inspiration rather than fact. But the Bible itself makes claims of perfection, and so taking it at its word in claims of perfection are as justified as any other perspective; perhaps more justified than some ‘inspired’ interpretations. If any interpretation of the Bible is as good as any other, then Christians in no way can distance themselves from the worst among them. Having failed to amend the contradictions, atrocities and absurdities in the Bible with over two thousand years to do so, it is reasonable to conclude that the Bible is considered factual among Christians. Some Christians (called Dominionists or Fundamentalists or Conservatives or the Christian Right) are explicit in their claim that the Bible is factual, while the rest hold it to be factual but requiring ‘interpretation’ (often by way of asking the reader to simply ignore parts of the Bible).

But this issue of OVO does not limit itself to criticisms of the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church claims a history pre-dating the Bible. Martin Luther, founder of Protestant Christianity, wrote inspired texts. The Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints and the Watchtower Society claim to have Christian revelations in modern times. All of these Christians are well deserving of criticism and contempt.

There are a set number of responses offered by Christians when confronted with their own beliefs. The first and most common is to be told that these Bible verses have been taken out of context. It is claimed that the verses surrounding these quotes give them a meaning other than their apparent meaning. If this is the case it will be easy to demonstrate; full citations for each quote are given throughout. The reader is encouraged to read the Bible. There is no more sure path to rejecting Christianity than understanding it. Some claim that the contexts of the times change how we should understand the Bible. But does the Bible say it is relevant only until the time of Job (the last time God speaks directly to humanity), or does it claim to be relevant to all times? Some claim that one translation of the Bible offers a more accurate account than another, but existing fragmentary early Christian texts contain their own contradictions, atrocities and absurdities.

The second common reply made by Christians when confronted with their own beliefs is that the Bible, God, Jesus and the rest are not to be understood by reason in the way math or science is. Christianity is to be understood by faith, by the heart, by the spirit, by the soul. Therefore any apparent contradictions, atrocities or absurdities should be ignored because those are all ‘reason’ and not ‘faith.’ But there is no ‘alternative to reason’ as faith is said to be. One can hope, one can wish, one can pretend and ignore, one can scream or run away or kill one’s critics, but none of these are alternatives to reason. Even if there were an alternative to reason, how is the ‘feeling’ that Christianity is true (and all other religions false) different from the ‘feeling’ that Islam is true (and all other religions are false)? Why is it that Christian ‘feelings’ are so regional – does God not inspire such ‘feelings’ everywhere equally? Why don’t children have that ‘feeling’ until an adult tells them to say they do, and why do adults spend so much effort making sure that ‘feeling’ is planted in children?

All religions claim to be the only true religion. Even the ecumenical religions claim to be the only true religion, by claiming that the non-ecumenical religions are false. But since all religions contradict each other at most only one can be the only true religion. Since all religions by definition put themselves outside what can be demonstrated as true, it would be unjust to establish any religion as secular law because the likelihood of error would be too great. Suppose Mithrism became the law of the United States when actually it was Ah Pook that was the real living God? Those countries that have a legal assumption of atheism serve freedom the most. At times this has been the case in the United States, where OVO originates. Christianity threatens the legal presupposition of atheism in the USA, necessitating this issue of OVO. Christianity is the superstition behind the US support of Israel, the war in Iraq, lack of access to Plan B and a vaccine for two strains of cancer-causing HPV, the removal of science from public education, the ongoing imprisonment of the West Memphis Three (among others), blue laws, laws forbidding atheists from holding elected office and more. Reform from within should occur in Christianity. Civil discourse should occur between Christians and non-Christians. But should Christianity elect to ignore the opportunities of positive reinforcement, let it learn the sting of negative reinforcement. OVO is not reforming Christianity from within, nor is it a civil discourse. It is an attack – using only Christianity’s own beliefs as weapons. When Mithrism or the faithful of Ah Pook establish their superstition as law in the USA, they will be equally worthy of criticism. Readers in countries where Islam or Judaism are the majority superstition are encouraged to make similar efforts.

This issue of OVO advocates the withering away of Christianity through reason and scorn. Reason alone withers Christianity to a hostile party guest that has long overstayed his welcome; scorn provide us with laughter and satisfaction as we show him to the door. Perhaps reason alone, or reason and compassion, might be a more noble endeavor. But any belief that cannot withstand a little mockery is perhaps not worth holding in the first place.

Subject religious organizations to the same requirements as secular non-profit organizations: demonstrate they perform a quantifiable public good to receive tax-exempt status. Do not donate any funds, labor or resources to Christian organizations: there are secular equivalents to any Christian organization for those who seek to aid others. Do not vote for politicians who make their Christianity a part of their platform. Oppose ‘faith based’ funding and theocratic laws. Learn more about Christianity than the Christians themselves. Confront Christians with their own claims and history.

OVO is fortunate to originate in the United States, where Christianity and other superstitions may be legally practiced and criticized. The United Kingdom, Holland, Sweden, Italy, Turkey, Norway, Canada and other countries forbid criticism of religion as a form of ‘hate crime,’ while China, North Korea and other countries forbid religion as a form of ‘thought crime.’ In the United States religion may be both practiced and criticized – for now. If Christianity continues to become the state religion of the United States, this may not be the case much longer.

OVO is a tool kit to disabuse the reader of Christianity.

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)

This essay makes the case against tax exemption for religious organizations in Oregon. The amount of revenue lost as well as the harm caused by religious organizations is not compensated for by the social good they are alleged to provide (this alleged social good being the justification for their tax exempt status).

Tax exemption for religious organizations in Oregon brings about three problems for Oregonians. First, there is no definition of religion to differentiate ‘real’ religious organizations from ‘fake’ ones, thus making any decision for or against tax exemption on the part of the government arbitrary. Second, religious organizations are not compelled to make contributions to their community that are comparable to the amount they are awarded in taxes breaks, nor is there any effort or means to hold them accountable for aiding the community. Third, the revenue needs of Oregon could be met by taxing religious organizations at only a fraction of the rate other organizations are taxed.

It is helpful to delineate what is under discussion in any argument. In this case, the topics under discussion are Oregon, taxes exemption and religion. Oregon is the state to the North of California and Nevada, to the South of Washington, to the West of Idaho and with a Western boundary of the Pacific Ocean. Tax exemption means that the agencies in question are not compelled to pay taxes. The definitions for Oregon and tax exemption are easy to find, confirm, and understand. But the search for a definition of religion is doomed to failure.

There is no legal definition of what a religion is, be it on the international level, the national level or the state level. Although many nations define religion as something deserving of political protection, there is no legal definition of what a religion is in international law [1].

There is also no legal definition of what a religion is in United States law. The First Amendment of the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that the religion of a US citizen cannot be used to deny them public accommodation, equal protection under the law, segregation in public education or college education, the right to vote, or employment [2]. While the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ensure protection of religion, neither define what it is they are protecting. The United States has never offered a definition what a religion is, although it has offered a definition of what a religion is not. In Thomas vs. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, the Supreme Court determined that “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection [3].” In the eyes of the law, a religion is anything that declares itself a religion.

There is no legal definition of what a religion is in Oregon law. ORS 128.620 (4) states a “religious organization means any organized church or group organized for the purpose of divine worship, religious teaching, or other directly ancillary purposes [4].” ORS 307.140 states property owned or being purchased by religious organizations is exempt from taxation [5]. ORS 65.001 (39) states that a religious group “is designated a religious corporation by a statute or is organized primarily or exclusively for religious purposes.” The Department of Revenues states that exemption from property tax is available for any religious group that has a constitution, bylaws, or charter which states its mission and purpose [6]. Religious organizations in Oregon are clearly given exemption from property tax, and are clearly expected to ‘be religious.’ But there is no legal definition of what a religion is or how to ‘be religious’ in Oregon law.

Whether it be international law, United States law or Oregon law, there is no legal definition of what a religion is. What if legal sanctions and prohibitions for other issues were left similarly vague? For better and for worse, there are legal definitions to who is and is not a Native American; what is and is not an endangered species; which chemicals are and are not legal to ingest. If there were no definition of who is a Native American, anyone could collect federal benefits reserved for Native Americans. If there were no definition of what an endangered species is, any species could be declared no longer endangered and hunted to extinction. If there were no definition of who is authorized to sell morphine, anyone who would like to make some fast money would do so. The reason legal definitions exist is so that laws may be fairly applied to all, and so that exemptions from the law may be justified. But a religious group is a religious group merely because it claims to be a religious group. Religions exempt themselves from definition, aside from the definition of ‘that which is tax exempt.’

Because there is no legal definition for religion in Oregon, there is no way to determine if religious tax exemptions are being fairly applied. Some religious organizations may be tax exempt but not deservedly so, while other religious organizations may not be tax exempt and deserve tax exemption. There is no way to determine if religious tax exemptions are being fairly granted to all applicants because there is no way to determine which applicant is ‘being religious’ and which is not. Whatever ‘being religious’ means, religious organizations are exempt from paying taxes. This includes taxes related to their property, businesses, income, and donations.

The justification offered for religious tax exemption is similar to that of secular groups that qualify for non-profit status (501c3). Secular non-profit organizations earn their tax exempt status by providing services that might otherwise be provided by the state, such as housing or medical care. Since the state does not have to pay for these services, no taxes are gathered from organizations that offer such services. Since the perceived need for taxes is thereby reduced, secular non-profit organizations can justify their tax-exempt status.

But there is an important difference between the tax-exempt status of secular organizations and the tax-exempt status of religious organizations. Secular non-profit organizations are held accountable for their work. They must demonstrate that the service they provide is necessary, that they have provided that service, that the service they provided was taken advantage of, and that the cost of lost taxes is less than the benefit of the services provided. If a secular non-profit organization cannot demonstrate each of these characteristics, they do not retain their tax-exempt status.

The standards that secular non-profit organizations are held to makes them very different from religious tax-exempt organizations. Religious tax-exempt organizations are not held to these standards or to any other standard. A religious organization may deliver food to the hungry, offer shelter to the homeless and counseling to the troubled – or they may do none of these things, or it may do these things to a standard far outside accepted norms (such as offering “prayer” as a substitute for medical care or counseling). Religious groups are exempt from taxes whether or not they serve their community and lessen the tax burden. There is no legal obligation on a religious group’s part to demonstrate they have delivered food, shelter or other tangible services; there is no legal obligation on a religious group’s part to do anything to retain their tax-exempt status other than filing or re-filing the proper forms. It is not possible to measure measures how much religion Oregonians need, how much religion religious organizations provide, how many people take advantage of religion, whether one form of religion is more beneficial than any other, or whether or not religion is cost effective. While is it possible to state how many people claim religious affiliation, it is not possible to state what that means. It is not possible to determine if a two-year-old just as religious as an adult. It is not possible to legislate how often or in what way a group must be religious to qualify for tax exempt status. Because there is no oversight to determine how much a religious group serves its community, there is no justification for tax exempt status for religious organizations in Oregon.

Oregon law does not state what religion is. Oregon law is also not consistent in when individuals are exempt from legal punishment due to religion. Sometimes activities are forbidden by law irregardless of religion, other times they are allowed if religion is said to be involved. In the case of Employment Division Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith it was determined that the state of Oregon is not compelled to allow the use of peyote [7]. Although peyote has been a part of Native American religions for centuries, and although the plaintiffs were themselves Native Americans and were using peyote for what they claimed were religious reasons, the state Supreme Court determined they were not entitled to unemployment compensation after being fired due to using peyote. The legal injunction against peyote use trumped their religious claims. This is an example of an activity being illegal whether or not it was ‘religious.’

Conversely, Oregon law provides immunity to many charges if the crime occurred as religion. These crimes have included homicide by abuse or neglect, first and second degree manslaughter, criminal mistreatment, requirements for children to wear a bicycle helmet, and nonsupport of children. Until recently, all of these crimes could be excused if the defendant claims they were committed as religion [8].

All newborns in Oregon are given a drop of vitamin K by law, but parents can prevent their children from receiving protection against spontaneous hemorrhaging for religious reasons.

The Followers of Christ Church in Clackamas County took advantage of religious exemption for murder by allowing nearly eighty children to die since the 1950s from treatable medical conditions. In over half of these deaths, the state did not attempt to establish the cause of death, the record was lost or their deaths were listed as due to ‘natural causes.’ Even when an Oregon medical examiner brought these deaths to the attention of the District Attorney’s office, the prosecutor declined to file charges. In the words of Rita Swan, “a parent may be beating or torturing a child, but if he or she can show that the child was prayed for, criminal charges must be dismissed [9].” Oregon House Bill 2494 revised criminal exemptions for parents who treat children only with prayer in 1999, after hearing opposing testimony by Oregon churches [10]. While child sacrifice in Oregon now carries some consequences, other criminal exemptions such as not requiring a religious child to wear a bicycle helmet remain [11]. These are examples of an otherwise illegal activity made legal by calling it ‘religious.’

One of the larger religious organization in Oregon is the Archdiocese of Portland. The Archdiocese of Portland is under the direct orders of the Roman Catholic Church, led by the Pope of Rome. In 1962, Pope John XXIII gave his approval to a document outlining the policy of the Roman Catholic Church in the event of child abuse by clergy. The policy was to keep child abuse by clergy secret and to transfer abusive priests to new parishes. The policy itself was to be kept secret but was revealed in 2003. The policy has never been retracted [12]; in fact, the current Pope stated in 2001 that the policy was still in effect [13]. More than one hundred and sixty nine victims of clerical child abuse have sued the Archdiocese of Portland for child abuse, and more than $53,000,000.00 has been assigned to settlements so far. While the Archdiocese of Portland filed for and received permission to delay paying its victims, it did have the funds to make building upgrades costing $1.6 million dollars [14]. The Archdiocese of Portland is estimated to own between $300,000,000 and $500,000,000 in property, none of which is taxed. It also owns special-purpose funds, investment funds, and loan funds, none of which are taxed. In 2003 its revenue was no less than and perhaps greater than $8.2 million, none of which was taxed [15]. The Archdiocese of Portland is only one out of 6,862 religious organizations claiming ORS 307.140 tax exemption in the state [16]. To quote the Oregonian, “The Catholic Church operates not by secular law, but by church law [17].”

Religious organizations in Oregon are not compelled to follow the same standards of education and employment as any other educator or employer in the state. Fundamental facts of nature which are part of the basic curriculum for any other school in the state may be omitted or deliberately misrepresented in religious schools. Any secular employer who hires and fires based on gender, ethnicity, sexuality, marital status or beliefs is subject to legal sanctions, but if the employer is religious they may hire and fire at will are protected by law in doing so.

Non-profit organizations (both secular and religious) are forbidden from endorsing political candidates. But some religious tax-exempt groups want to have their cake and eat it too. The Sonrise Church of Hillsboro lost its tax exempt status after partisan campaigning on its property [18]. The Christian Coalition has published the same sort of voting guides that cost the Sonrise Church its tax exempt status [19]. The New Hope Community Church of Clackamas has held partisan campaign meetings on its property [20]. The campaign to elect George W. Bush solicited the support of hundreds of religious organizations [21]. To further blur the line between state and superstition, the House of Representatives has initiated a bill that will merely fine religious organization that engage in partisan politics rather than revoke their tax exempt status [22]. Religious organizations can now avail themselves to federal funds through George W. Bush’s ‘faith based initiatives’ law – but apparently this money is made available mainly to Christian organizations, as few other religious organizations that have applied have received such funds. Under faith based funding, tax dollars can go to agencies that refuse to hire or serve minorities, women, homosexuals or anyone else for any reason.

In 1998 the Audits Division of the State of Oregon Department of Revenue conducted an audit of property tax exemptions. It determined that among religious organizations claiming tax exempt status under ORS 307.140, the sum of $2,010,492,000.00 was lost in tax year 1995-1996 [23]. This figure represents only revenues lost from property taxes, and does not include other lost forms of revenues connected to employment, businesses, museums and other sources of income for religious organizations. The audit states that 41 of the 154 organizations audited that were granted tax exempt status did not even meet the minimal state standards for tax exempt status (whatever those might be). The audit does not specifically state how many of these organizations were tax exempt under ORS 307.140. But the fact that one third of the organizations that claimed (and were granted) exemption totaling seventeen percent of $170.9 billion dollars in property taxes [24] were not qualified to do so suggests that Oregon religious tax exemption law is in dire need of supervision and revision [25]. Among other recommendations, the audit suggested that Oregon needs a clear definition of what a religion is to be able to fairly evaluate applications for ORS 307.140 tax exempt status [26]. This recommendation was not mentioned in the Department of Revenue’s reply [27] nor in a 1999 report on their progress in implementing 1998 audit [28]. Religion continues to go undefined, but religious tax exemption continues to be granted.

At what cost does Oregon grant tax exempt status to religious organizations? The state deficit for fiscal year 2004 was between $950,000.00 and $1,267,000.00 [29]. If religious organizations were taxed only for their property and only at half the rate of any other organization, the state budget would be all-but balanced within a single year.

Being religious, the defining trait that has no definition, is in the main an excuse to do as one pleases without consequence in Oregon. The majority of religious organizations in Oregon do not abuse and sacrifice children. Instead, they do nothing. Doing nothing and ruining childrens’ lives should not be rewarded with tax exemption.

Notes:
[1] Gunn , T. Jeremy: The Complexity of Religion and the Definition of “Religion” in International Law. Harvard Human Rights Journal Volume 16 Spring 2003. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss16/gunn.shtml
[2] Civil Rights Act of 1964. Document Number: PL 88-352. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civilr19.htm
[3] Thomas vs. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division. 450 U.S. 707. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/450/707.html
[4] ORS Chapter 128 http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/128.html
[5] ORS Chapter 307 http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/307.html
[6] Property Tax Exemptions for Special Organizations. http://www.dor.state.or.us/InfoC/310-664.html
[7] Employment Division Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith http://laws.findlaw.com/us/494/872.html
[8] Children’s Health Care. http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/
[9] Swan, Rita. Letting Children Die for the Faith. Free Inquiry, Volume 19, Number 1. http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/swan_19_1.htm
[10] Larabee, Mark. Shield-law bills face easy win in House. Oregonian, March 5, 1999 http://www.rickross.com/reference/foc/foc9.html
[11] Children’s Health Care. http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/
[12] BBC News. Excerpts: Vatican document. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3157859.stm
[13] Pope ‘Obstructed’ Sex Abuse Inquiry. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1469055,00.html
[14] Funds are Released to Florence Parish http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/111813879118220.xml&coll=7
[15] Sunday Oregonian, May 23, 2004, Page A-14.
[16] State of Oregon Department of Revenue Property Tax Exemptions. March 24, 1998. Page 51. http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/audreports/1998_year.html
[17] Sunday Oregonian, May 23, 2004, Page A-14.
[18] Americans United Reports Eight Churches to IRS for Distributing Christian Coalition Voter Guides During November Elections. December 10 1998. http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6112&abbr=pr&JServSessionIdr012=i6cieg36h2.app1b&news_iv_ctrl=1502
[19] Christian Coalition of Oregon http://www.coalition.org/
[20] Dobson speaks to NW pastors about same-sex debate. KATU April 5 2004. http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=66042
[21] Bush Campaign [...] To Forge Church-Based Political Machine. Americans United, June 2 2004. http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6692&abbr=pr&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241
[22] House steps into church-politics debate. USA Today, June 8 2004. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-06-08-church-politics_x.htm
[23] State of Oregon Department of Revenue Property Tax Exemptions. March 24, 1998. Page 51. http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/audreports/1998_year.html
[24] ibid. March 24, 1998. Page 56. http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/audreports/1998_year.html
[25] ibid. March 24, 1998. Page iii. http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/audreports/1998_year.html
[26] ibid. March 24, 1998. Page 44. http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/audreports/1998_year.html
[27] ibid. March 24, 1998. Page 55. http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/audreports/1998_year.html
[28] State of Oregon Department of Revenue Status of 1998 Audit Recommendations as Reported by State Agencies. November 17, 1999. http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/audreports/1999_year.html
[29] State Budget Shortfall Map http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/budgetmap.html

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)

Between April 11 and April 15 of 2004, I hosted an atheist table at Portland Community College in Portland, Oregon. This is an account of what I did, how I did it, and the response to what I did.

Getting the table was not difficult: I submitted the same paperwork that the religious groups on campus submit every other week of the year and my request was approved right away. I only asked for an hour a day for four days, due to other school obligations. Most religious groups have their tables out all day for weeks on end.

I spent about $40 printing some pamphlets I made. My pamphlets consisted of quotes from religious sources such as the Christian Bible and the Quran. The idea was that direct quotes from the source presented without comment would speak louder than any criticism I could offer. The quotes were gathered according to themes such as science, women, prophecies, etc. I also requested literature from atheist groups and several generously answered my request: Campus Freethought Alliance, Center for Inquiry, Council for Secular Humanism, and United States Atheists. I decided to keep the effort ‘ecumenical’ in that I wasn’t there representing any particular organization. By the end of the week I learned that the professionally published literature is taken more readily than the home-made photocopies, and that everyone loves stickers. I decorated a second-hand tablecloth with the word ATHEIST in large, black letters – no missing this table, no missing what this table was about (or so I hoped). PCC specifically forbids collecting personal information on campus, so I didn’t have a sign-up sheet as the Campus Freethought Alliance suggests. Nor did I primarily promote humanism rather than critique religion, as the CFA suggets. For this first effort on campus I want it to be clear that religion itself, not just particular groups or people or claims, was not exempt from criticism. I also set up a simple Web page for those who wanted to get or share more information.

Many people had questions about the atheist table. Some wanted to know if there was an official atheist club on campus, and what the club did. I said that there was not school-sponsored club because I knew that some students wouldn’t feel comfortable if their student activities fee went toward such a club. PCC offers up to $500 per group per year. There are at least five or six religious clubs on campus at all times, and no limit to the number of clubs that could exist. Two people said ‘but the Christian groups don’t hesitate in taking my money.’ I said that was a decision that PCC and the Christian groups made, and suggested they take it up with PCC and the Christians if they disapproved. I said many times that while there was no club, we did have a Web page and that I hoped in the future to either bring in or be a guest speaker on atheism, religion, church/state issues, and the like.

Some who stopped by the table had questions not about what I was offering but what I wasn’t offering. Why not have a separation of church and state table instead of an atheist table? Why aren’t there any pamphlets on creationism versus evolution? Why are there only pamphlets about Christianity and Islam, and not other religions? The general answer was that there was only so much I could do on this first attempt at an atheist table but all of these issues had relevant links and information at the Web site.

Some people had philosophical questions such as why we are here, where the first life came from, what happens when we die, whether or not there was a spiritual world, and ‘how do you live’ (which seemed to mean how can an atheist have ethics and a joy in living while remaining unconvinced by claims of God or an afterlife). I replied that I have read several theories as to how the earliest life appeared on Earth but I don’t consider myself versed enough in science to have a deep understanding of the subject, so I didn’t know for sure how life first formed. But I said it is more likely that there is a natural explanation than a supernatural one. Regarding ‘how I live’ I said I was not convinced by claims that there was an afterlife or a spiritual world or God. I said people can have the purpose they give themselves, and that can be its own reward. I have worked at a homeless shelter and as an American Sign Language interpreter for many years. I’ve taken classes on how to teach children with learning disabilities and how to be a better counselor. I am a member of Amnesty International and donate to charitable organizations. That’s some of ‘how I live’ without God.

A few people offered their unsolicited analysis about why I was hosting an atheist table. They said I must have had a bad experience with religion, or I must have never read the Bible, or I must have never really read the Bible, or I must have never had someone explain the Bible to me in just the right way. I replied that I had an entirely positive religious experience growing up, and that part of my religious upbringing was being encouraged to read the Bible. I started reading it as a child, and I have read from it ever since. The more I read, the more problems I find. Is it possible that the right explanation from the right explainer will make it all true again? It is possible, but I think it is very unlikely this will happen. Some claim atheism is obviously false because it claims to have ‘all the answers,’ but I suggest it is religion that has a one-size-fits-all answer (‘God did it’) and it is atheism that keeps asking questions.

People asked me what atheism was. I gave two answers: that atheism is what is left over when the claims of religion are found to be false, and that atheism is a rejection of the supernatural. The former explains why atheism is not ‘just another religion,’ the later explains what atheism is against. It might have been less confrontational to have a secular humanist table instead of an atheist table, but I confess I enjoyed tweaking the noses of the religious on campus. The worst I can say about them is I don’t believe their claims. Their holy books say I should be put to death (the Christians have Deuteronomy 13:6-10, the Muslims have Quran 2:191). I think they can stand a little confrontation.

I managed to distribute nearly all of the literature I had, but the experience wasn’t only one of being a teacher. I also learned from the experience. I learned there was a uniformity in how non-Christians perceived Christians: without exception, non-Christians spoke of Christians as liars and bullies. I was asked seven times if I was ‘serious,’ if I was really an atheist. I was asked this more than anything else. The reason why people asked if I was ‘serious’ was they thought the table was a trick by Christian. Five times I was asked if any Christians had harassed me yet. Christians are clearly are not viewed favorably on campus outside of their own circle. Non-Christians see Christians as people prone to misrepresent themselves to ‘win souls’ and to abuse those who disagree with them. I hope Christians reading this do not use this as evidence they are a persecuted group; being disliked is not evidence of being put down, and there may be entirely valid reasons for their being disliked. If anyone reading this who is not a Christian has thought in the past they were alone in mistrusting Christians, that they are in a critical minority, they might like to know that instead they are the majority. But it is a majority that has been deceived and bullied into silence.

The dislike and mistrust for Christians on campus was one thing I learned from hosting an atheist table. Another thing was how clearly divided Christians are in their behavior based on gender. Of those who identified themselves as Christians, wore Christian jewelry or carried Christian Bibles, the men and the women acted entirely differently. The Christian women both asked questions and gave answers. They spoke and listened to me and to other people at the table. The Christian men, however, were angry and condescending. I was told by the Christian men I ‘must live an empty life,’ that I ‘didn’t know what I was talking about,’ that I ‘should read the Bible before I quote from it,’ and more. Men also tended to exhibit a ‘rant and run’ behavior – they would bark out a comment or a judgment, sometimes in the middle of my listening to someone else, then literally run away. Sticking around to hear anything I had to say in reply was not in the cards for these Christian men. It was a man who asked the confusing question ‘Why are you pointing out all the things that are wrong in the Bible that are true anyway?’ It was a man who said that asking Christians to defend their claims, as I did in my pamphlets, was saying Christians are stupid. If the bad reputation of Christians is based in experience, I suggest it is Christian men and not Christian women who are to blame. No other categorization of Christians, such as age or ethnicity, was apparent.

A few Christians of both genders came to the table more than one day. And both a male and a female Christian gave the same reply to what turned out to be the most popular pamphlet I offered (see below). Regarding the fact that Jesus said that He would return and the world would end ‘soon’ (a ‘soon’ that came and went two thousand years ago), they said that a day to God was like a thousand years and a thousand years was like a day. Although one Christian mistakenly said this was a quote from Psalms, I found the quote in 2 Peter 3:8. The unknown author of 2 Peter references the letter of Jude, which was written around 80-100 CE. Thus the 1=1000 claim could only have been made after Jesus was already one or more generations late. In fact, the main point of 2 Peter Chapter 3 is to answer those who were asking, all the way back then, why Jesus hadn’t returned in their lifetimes as He had promised He would. People were asking if Jesus had lied (or been a lie) two thousand years ago. People are still asking today. But some aren’t asking anything: they just accept that when you put God into the picture, you don’t have to mean what you say or say what you mean. Jesus promised (thirty times or more!) to return within the lifetime of those who saw Him; He didn’t, but His followers claim He said that, He never lied, He is coming back, and somehow at the same time He is coming back two thousand years ago. Might all this confusion contribute to the perception that Christians are liars?

Based on conversations, repeat visits, and other signs of apparent interest it seems that my pamphlet questioning Christian prophecy was the most popular. It is possible that the topics presented in the pamphlets I offered were not the main reason people selected some and not others. Perhaps they picked up what was closest to them, or what was the most colorful. For whatever reason, here are the topics covered and how many of each pamphlet were taken:

Thirty Failed Prophecies: 28
The Bible Condones Slavery and Racism: 20
Women in the Bible: 16
Antisemitism in the Bible: 14
Papal-sanctioned Child Abuse: 10
Antisemitism from Martin Luther: 9
Fantastic Claims of Islam: 9
God Hates Homosexuality: 8
The Bible on the Origins of Life: 8
The Bible on the Origins of the Earth: 6

Only one person mentioned Islam at all (saying he had seen a table for an Islamic group before). Although there is no small Islamic presence on campus, no Muslim identified themselves to me, sought to understand what I was doing or challenge my claims. Nor was any other religion defended during this week. Instructors at PCC seemed to neither entirely avoid from nor come to the table: a few did each. It was only the Christians and those who have been cowed by the Christians who engaged me.

Some of those who came to the table were sympathetic but had concerns with atheism. One said ‘I understand the importance of the separation of church and state, but when they start banning Christmas in public grade school that’s going too far.’ I suggested that because not all religious holidays enjoy the same investment of tax dollars that celebrating Christmas was an instance of government establishment of religion and thus a violation of the First Amendment. One person said they liked what I was doing but ‘most people think atheism means evil’ (Devilishly, I said that’s why I did it). Another said I was just pushing my faith on other people: I reminded him that he came up to me and started the conversation, and that disbelieving the claims of religion was not a matter of faith.

A small number of people looked at the Web page. For all of four hours, there was a freethinker on campus that people could ask questions to and hear answers from. But what I value most out of the experience was the words of encouragement I got from the non-Christian majority who stopped by. Most of them appeared concerned about being seen talking to me but they each quietly said something nice. ‘Thank you for doing this!’ ‘I’m always trying to explain these things and it’s hard, can I take two pamphlets?’ ‘It’s good to see everyone get a chance, not just the religious groups.’ ‘I look forward to discussion with you.’ ‘This is great, I’m a recovering Catholic.’ ‘My boyfriend is an atheist.’ ‘This is interesting!’ Three people gave me the ‘thumbs up.’ And my favorite vote of confidence: ‘Good on you!’

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)

for Ira Cohen

I
off to the beiad what ho for the Fayyum & Egyptian solitude. This yearning for renunciation out-seduces other Lesser lusts & becomes our secret vice our coenobitic luxe. Our athletic asceticism is crypto-aestheticism

our grottos

coat our grotesque bodies in mother-of-pearl we grow a few herbs nudge nudge & every day wink wink a raven arrives with a loaf of “bread.” The desert so monochromous to jaded urbanites offers auras & auroras to the

anchroritic eye

Our nothingness is a giant suck-hole

that

re-appropriates the world & our friends the devils

Little Anthony & the Temptations we succumb to every one of them

especially

the succulent succubus of dolce far niente

which the worldly call prayer.

II
Juice for Jesus

You yourself are a kind of food of love & love a kind of spiritual cannibalism – & not so totally spiritual for those whose taste in love runs to precious bodily fluids. Jesus is the juice of your genitalia your tears your underarm sweat et cetera music at best the sauce High Church Victoriana pompous as beeswax & ammonia.

Appetite

would never feed on itself if it could lick the dirt from your shoes. Real food is based on you like distant emanations from the Platonic kitchen

caviare

champagne

& other disgusting sacraments of the Libertine Gnostics

They laughed at Yeats because he never missed the dinner bell at Colle no matter how

entranced

with swans. Fools

the food of love is actually food.

III
Everyone talks about negative capability but nobody ever does anything about it

Every day

we cram ourselves with juicy disasters

planning

later to dry out our heads with whiffs of some bodhisattva’s farts

or Art

or ideology or shopping

hoping

to forget what the wise old elves always stage-whispered to me on the most radical afternoons of unreconstructed Summer

Psst! hey kid

come & eat clouds like us eat emptiness & feel the scintillating buzz the enticing somethingness of a rich

long-ago nothing that can hover in mid-air like a

dragonfly

or Jesus the water-bug.

IV Twelve Steps to Hell

1.
Abraham & Eggs
vaudeville duo advocating
the meltdown of monotheism
in a maelstrom sweet as treacle
Breakfast of heretics shed for me
blackpudding mushrooms kippers
rashers of bacon & lashings of tea
because it’s not what enters the mouth
that pollutes as the Borborites say
or pale Carpucrateans with their sacrament
of precious bodily fluids
but what comes out of it
language as puke

2.
The Sevenheaded Cobra demands
immediate re-paganization of the Abrahamic Traditions
or hostages will be shot
out of circus cannons & bounce
like swans in widespread nets
with Theosophical warps
& polymorphous wefts
too complex for even the most advanced
generation of military computers
to map with any degree of inaccurate
inaccessible mountain somewhere
in the almost Martian landscape
of Waziristan.

3.
Why should the Right monopolize
mystic runes groovy grafitti
skull-&-crossbones or the color black
Ice shelves of Arctic unreason
are melting melting
leaving behind
only a pair of red shoes such as
vegetarian spirits like to sport
hobgoblins haunting Europe
with nastly recrudenscence
of funkadelic thaumaturgy &
illiterate syncretism
the snakes cult to end all snake cults
return of the never quite sufficiently
repressed
in the form of goat panic terror
& shameless idolatry.

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)

The Watchtower Society, also known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, have predicted the end of the world no less than five times. According to their founder Charles Taze Russell, their second President J.E. Rutherford, and their official magazines The Watchtower and Awake!, the world was to end in 1914. But 1914 came and went without the world ending. So the date changed to 1915. But 1915 came and went without the world ending. So the date changed to 1918. But 1918 came and went without the world ending. So the date changed to 1925. But 1925 came and went without the world ending. So the date changed to 1975. But 1975 came and went without the world ending. So they stopped making public predictions about the end of the world and purged members (nearly 30,000 in 1978 alone) who questioned these false prophecies. Making failed predictions is a sure way to look stupid, but looking stupid isn’t so bad. Where the Watchtower Society really stands out is denying medical care for their children, based on fickle revelations from God to their leadership. Sometimes they ban medical procedures such as blood transfusions or organ transplants, sometimes they do not ban them – too bad if your child died while the ban was in effect. Maybe it wasn’t the end of the world, just the end of your child, that the Jehovah’s Witnesses were able to bring about.

THE WORLD WILL END IN 1914
“And, with the end of A.D. 1914, what God calls Babylon , and what men call Christendom, will have passed away, as is already shown from prophecy.” Charles Taze Russell, Studies In The Scriptures, Vol. III
“…we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished by the end of A.D. 1914″ Charles Taze Russell, The Finished Mystery.

NO, WAIT, THE WORLD WILL END IN 1915
“In the coming 26 years [1889+25], all present governments will be overthrown and dissolved.” Charles Taze Russell, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. II
“The Gentile Times prove that the present governments must all be overthrown about the close of A.D. 1915.” Charles Taze Russell, The Time Is At Hand.

NO, WAIT, THE WORLD WILL END IN 1918
“… in the year 1918, when God destroys the churches wholesale and the church members by millions, it shall be that any that escape shall come to the works of Pastor Russell to learn the meaning of the downfall of Christianity.” The Finished Mystery (1917 edition).

NO, WAIT, THE WORLD WILL END IN 1925
“… there will be a resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and other faithful ones of old … we may expect 1925 to witness the return of these faithful men of Israel from the condition of death, being resurrected and fully restored to perfect humanity and made the visible, legal representatives of the new order of things on earth… Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews 11, to the condition of human perfection.” J.E. Rutherford, Millions Now Living Will Never Die.
“Fulfilled prophecy shows beyond a doubt that (Christ) did appear in 1874. Fulfilled prophecy is otherwise designated the physical facts; and these facts are indisputable… We understand that the jubilee type began to count in 1575 B.C.; and the 3,500 year period embracing the type must end in 1925… It follows, then, that the year 1925 will mark the beginning of the restoration of all things lost by Adam’s disobedience.” J.E. Rutherford, The Watchtower, November 1 1922
“Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge.” The Watchtower, April 1 1923

NO, WAIT, THE WORLD WILL END IN 1975
“[...] according to reliable Bible chronology Adam was created in the year 4026 BCE, likely in the autumn of the year, at the end of the sixth day of creation.” [...]  “According to reliable Bible chronology, Adam and Eve were created in 4026 BCE.” [...] “Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ… Our chronology, however, which is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible), at the best only points to the autumn of 1975 as the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence on earth.” The Watchtower April 1, 1968; Awake! October 8, 1968; The Watchtower August 15, 1968.

BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS FORBIDDEN!
Watchtower September 15 1961 pp. 563-564
Watchtower February 15 1964 pp. 127-8

BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS NOT FORBIDDEN!
Watchtower November 15 1964 pp. 680-3
Watchtower June 15 2000 p. 31

ORGAN TRANSPLANT FORBIDDEN!
Watchtower November 15 1967 pp. 702-4
Awake! June 8 1968 p. 21

ORGAN TRANSPLANT NOT FORBIDDEN!
Watchtower March 15 1980 p. 31

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)

Those Mormons sure are friendly. But are they friendly to all of God’s children? The following quotations from Nephi, Jacob, and Alma are from the Book of Mormon. In modern editions of the Book of Mormon the word ‘white’ (skin) is often changed to ‘pure’ (character); the original text is quoted here. As the Book of Mormon is said to be inspired by God, dictated by angels and faithfully transcribed by Joseph Smith, any modern changes are less accurate than these original quotes. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Bruce McConkie, Mark Peterson and Orson Pratt were or are all leaders of the LDS. African-American men were not allowed to be clergy in the LDS until 1978, nor were African-American men allowed to lead LDS Boy Scout troops. Like the Mormon revelation that polygamy was not to be practiced on Earth (only in Heaven), the revelations to white-wash the Book of Mormon and allow African-American leadership came at exactly the same time as human discontent (and lawsuits) arose against them. What a miracle!

• And the angel said unto me: Behold these [Native Americans] shall dwindle in unbelief. And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations. – 1 Nephi 22:23
• And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain. – 1 Nephi 13:15
• And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done. And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey. – 2 Nephi 5:21:24
• And then shall they [Native Americans] rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people. – 2 Nephi 30:6
• Behold, the Lamanites [Native Americans] your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father – that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them. [...] O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. [...] Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers. – Jacob 3:5,8-9
• And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men. [...] And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction. [...] And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed. – Alma 3:6,9
• “Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species and put them on a national equalization.” – Joseph Smith
• “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” – Brigham Young
• “…after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation a upon a the earth as well as God… ” – John Taylor
• “The negroes are not equal with other races when the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned [...] As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the negroes [...] Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have [been] cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry.” – Bruce McConkie
• “At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the negroes we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that He placed a dark skin upon them as a curse – as a punishment and as a sign to all others. [...] If there is one drop of negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. There isn’t any argument, therefore, as to intermarriage with the Negro, is there? Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it.” – Mark Peterson
• “The Lord has not kept them in store for five or six thousand years past, and kept them waiting for their bodies all this time to send them among the Hottentots, the African Negroes, the idolatrous Hindoos, or any other of the fallen nations of the earth.” – Orson Pratt

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)

Protestant Christianity was founded by Martin Luther. What did Luther have to say about Jews? Maybe Luther wasn’t such a great moral leader after all. Maybe these proposals bore fruit in Luther’s country four hundred years later.  The following are quotes from Luther’s book The Jews and Their Lies (1543).

I had made up my mind to write no more either about the Jews or against them. But since I learned that these miserable and accursed people do not cease to lure to themselves even us, that is, the Christians, I have published this little book, so that I might be found among those who opposed such poisonous activities of the Jews who warned the Christians to be on their guard against them. I would not have believed that a Christian could be duped by the Jews into taking their exile and wretchedness upon himself. However, the devil is the god of the world, and wherever God’s word is absent he has an easy task, not only with the weak but also with the strong. May God help us. Amen

My essay, I hope, will furnish a Christian (who in any case has no desire to become a Jew) with enough material not only to defend himself against the blind, venomous Jews, but also to become the foe of the Jews’ malice, lying, and cursing, and to understand not only that their belief is false but that they are surely possessed by all devils. May Christ, our dear Lord, convert them mercifully and preserve us steadfastly and immovably in the knowledge of him, which is eternal life. Amen.

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly – and I myself was unaware of it – will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.
Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17 [:10]) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: “what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord.” Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people’s obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 [:18], “You are Peter,” etc, inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.

Fifth, I advise that safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home.

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God’s blessing in a good and worthy cause.

Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an axe, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]). For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)

Imagine that you meet someone who offered you a magic pony, a bag of candy, and to be your best friend forever. The generous stranger promised thirty times they would do these things for you within your lifetime, and then disappeared. They never came back in your life, or the lives of your children, or your children’s children, or any of your descendants for over two thousand years. Would it make sense to keep waiting for the generous stranger who made such amazing promises, or would you admit that he told a nice story but didn’t deliver the goods? Jesus said thirty times that He would establish the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth within the lifetime of those who saw Him speak. Two thousand years later, Christians are still making excuses for their lying Messiah.

• The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly. – Zephaniah 1:14
• For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts. – Haggai 2:6-8
• But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I [Jesus] say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. – Matthew 10:23
• Verily I [Jesus] say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. – Matthew 16:28
• Verily I [Jesus] say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. – Matthew 23:36
• And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. – Matthew 24:14 [Romans 10:18 states: But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.]
• Verily I [Jesus] say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. – Matthew 24:34
• Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. – Matthew 26:64
• And he [Jesus] said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. – Mark 9:1
• Verily I [Jesus] say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. – Mark 13:30
• And Jesus said, I am: and ye [“the high priest”] shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. – Mark 14:62
• But I [Jesus] tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God. – Luke 9:27
• Verily, verily, I [Jesus] say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. – John 5:25
• And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. – Romans 13:11-12
• But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none. -  1 Corinthians 7:29
• Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. – 1 Corinthians 10:11
• Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand. – Philippians 4:5
• For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. [...] Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. -  1 Thessalonians 4:15, 17
• That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. -  2 Thessalonians 2:2
• God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds. – Hebrews 1:1,2
• For then must he [Jesus] often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. – Hebrews 9:26
• For yet a little while, and he [Jesus] that shall come will come, and will not tarry. – Hebrews 10:37
• Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. – James 5:8
• Who [Jesus] verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you. – 1 Peter 1:20
• But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer. – 1 Peter 4:7
• Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many Antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. – 1 John 2:18
• Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. – 1 John 3:2
• The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John [...] Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. – Revelation 1:1, 3
• Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown [...] Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book. – Revelation 3:11, 22:7, 12
• And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. – Revelation 22:12

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)

The Bible sure likes the number twelve: twelve sons of Jacob, twelve tribes of Israel, twelve golden dishes for the dedication of the alter, twelve baskets of bread, twelve Apostles, twelve stars on the woman’s head, twelve gates and foundations of new Jerusalem, the tree of life bears twelve manner of fruit, and the twelve apostles of the Lamb. What an amazing coincidence that the ancients also held that there were twelve signs of the zodiac. The Bible states clearly that there were more than twelve apostles, but echoes of the twelve houses of astrology are what people remember when counting the apostles. The Bible supports astrology: God made the stars “for signs” (Genesis 1:14), a star was the sign of Jesus’ birth (Matthew 2:1-2), and Jesus condones the use of stars for divination (Luke 21:25).

Who Were the Twelve Apostles?

• Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him. – Matthew 10:2-4
• And He [Jesus] ordained twelve, that they should be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach, and to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils: and Simon He surnamed Peter; and James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and He surnamed them Boanerges, which is, the sons of thunder: and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed Him: and they went into an house. – Mark 3:14-19

No, Really, Who Were the Twelve Apostles?

• And when it was day, he called unto Him His disciples: and of them He chose twelve, whom also He named apostles; Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor. – Luke 6:13-16

Wait, Say That Again, Who Were the Twelve Apostles?

• And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. – Act 1:13

Were there maybe Thirteen Apostles?

• Am I [Paul] not an apostle? – 1 Corinthians 9:1

How About Fourteen Apostles?

• Other of the apostles I saw none, save James the Lord’s brother. – Galatians 1:19

Do I Hear Fifteen?

• He was buried and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures: and that He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve. – 1 Corinthians 15:4-5

Could There Be Seventeen Apostles, Including a Woman?

• Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. – Romans 16:7

Should We Count Judas’ Replacement? Make it Eighteen, Then.

• And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. – Acts 1:26

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)

Christianity often presents itself as “Jew 2.0” – a yummy chosen people treat with a Messiah in every bite. But what does the Bible have to say about its parent superstition, Judaism? Kind of makes those ‘Hitler was an atheist’ arguments fall flat.

• [Jesus said:] But the children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. – Matthew 8:12
• [Jesus said:] Wherefore ye [the Jews] be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. – Mathew 23:31
• Then answered all the people, and said, His [Jesus'] blood be on us [the Jews], and on our children. – Mathew 27:25
• And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. [...]
• Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. – John 5:16,18

• After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. – John 7:1
• Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews. – John 7:13
• [Jesus said: ]Ye [the Jews] are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. – John 8:44
• His [Jesus'] disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again? – John 11:8
• The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he [Jesus] ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. [...] And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar. [...] And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.- John 19:7, 12, 14-15
• Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. – John 20:19
• But ye [the Jews] denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. – Acts 3:14-15
• The God of our fathers [the Jews] raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. – Acts 5:30
• Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye [the Jews]. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers. – Acts 7:51-52
• But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.
• And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him. – Acts 9:22-23

• And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree. – Acts 10:39
• Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. – Acts 12:1-3
• But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. [...] But the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts. – Acts 13: 45-46, 50
• But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren. – Acts 14:2
• But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people. [...] But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people. – Acts 17:5, 13

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)

Ask your preacher about the Secret Gospel of Mark this Sunday, won’t you?

Mark 10:46 states: “Then they came to Jericho. As He was leaving Jericho with His disciples…” This verse is puzzling: why mention that Jesus and His disciples went to Jericho and then left Jericho? Did something happen in Jericho that isn’t mentioned in the modern Bible? A discovery made in 1958 may provide the answer.

In 1958, Morton Smith (a theology graduate student from Columbia University) went to the Mar Saba Monastery near Jerusalem to catalog their library. While he was there, Smith discovered a transcription of a letter written by Clement of Alexandria to “Theodore” laid into the back of the 1646 edition of a book called Epistolae genuinae S. Ignatii Martyris. The letter claims that in earlier editions of Mark there was a passage that described what Jesus and His disciples did in Jericho. Here is the missing passage:

[Then they came to Jericho.] And they came into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and said to Him, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me.’ But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, He stretched forth His hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon Him, loved Him and began to beseech Him that he might be with Him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth came to Him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with Him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan. [As He was leaving Jericho with His disciples...]

The Secret Gospel of Mark is missing from all modern versions of the Bible although it is as credible as any other work to be found there. But other accounts of God-sanctioned nudity remain. A naked young man was with Jesus and the disciples when Jesus was arrested (Mark 14:51-52). Saul prophecies naked (1 Samuel 19:24), as does Isaiah (Isaiah 20:25) and Micah (Micah 1:8).

Early Christianity clearly included a nude ritual of initiation; this is what Jesus means when He says we must be ‘born again’ (we are born naked). The world might be a different place indeed if Christians still considered observing the naked body sacred rather than a sin.

(from OVO 16 ANTICHRIST January 2006)