OVO

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 a examples of an otherwise illegal activity being 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 children’s 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)

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)

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)

via youtube.

Dena Potter: Rasta Inmates Spend 10 Years in Isolation for Hair

It is [Kendall Gibson's] hair — winding locks he considers a measure of his Rastafarian faith — that makes him a threat, according to Virginia Department of Corrections Operating Procedure No. 864.1. The rule took effect on Dec. 15, 1999. Inmates had two choices: cut their hair no longer than their collars and shave their beards, or be placed in administrative segregation.

Paul von Zielbauer: Inmates Are Free to Practice Black Supremacist Religion in New York, a Judge Rules

Mr. [Intelligent Tarref] Allah is a Five Percenter, part of a black militant group that broke from the Nation of Islam in the 1960′s. The New York State prison system has long regarded it as a violence-prone gang, much as the system also regards the Latin Kings, Crips or the Aryan Brotherhood. The name derives from the concept that only 5 percent of the world’s people break free from the worship of a false ”mystery God” and become gods to themselves and their families.

Justin Penrose: Rapist Jamaile Morally in Boiling Oil Jail Attack

A jailed killer poured boiling oil over another inmate because he refused to convert to Islam. Jamaile Morally, 26 – sentenced to life as part of a gang that raped, tortured and murdered a teenage girl and left another for dead – led two other inmates in carrying out the attack.

BBC: Kenya ‘Deports Muslim Hate Cleric Abdullah al-Faisal’

He has served four years in a UK prison after being convicted of soliciting the murder of Jews and Hindus.

Religion Cause: Miranda Rights Waived In Answers About Religious Belief and Prayer

Earlier this week in Berghuis v. Thompkins, (Sup. Ct., June 1, 2010), the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision made it easier for police to obtain a waiver of Miranda rights by suspects being questioned. The majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, held that police can continue questioning a suspect until he clearly invokes his right to remain silent. Furthermore, when questioning continues after a Miranda warning has been given and understood, the accused’s later uncoerced statement implies a waiver of his right to remain silent. The uncoerced statement in this case was a response by the accused to questions about his belief in God. Here is Justice Kennedy’s account: About 2 hours and 45 minutes into the interrogation, [Police Detective] Helgert asked Thompkins, “Do you believe in God?” …. Thompkins made eye contact with Helgert and said “Yes,” as his eyes “well[ed] up with tears.” … “Do you pray to God?” Thompkins said “Yes.” … Helgert asked, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” … Thompkins answered “Yes” and looked away…. Thompkins refused to make a written confession, and the interrogation ended about 15 minutes later.

Israel News: ‘Saint with Pure Semen’ Imprisoned

Former Defense Ministry employee says his semen is holy liquid, physical contact with him heals body and soul. Number of women fall under his influence after he tells them he is one of 36 righteous people in Judaism.

Los Angeles Times: Sex Allegations Against Rabbi Roil Israel’s Orthodox Community

Sexual harassment by religious leaders and homosexuality among rabbis.

Chicago News: Dad Could Be Jailed for Taking Girl to Church

Last month, Joseph Reyes violated a court order when he took his young daughter to services at Holy Name Cathedral. The court order– which states Reyes cannot expose the toddler to any religion other than Judaism– came down after Reyes, 35, baptized his daughter without his wife’s permission. His wife is Jewish and he converted, but the couple is in the middle of a bitter divorce. Reyes says he was a practicing Catholic when he married his wife, Rebecca. He converted to Catholicism after his daughter’s birth. Now, he says his estranged wife and the court is interfering with his right to expose his daughter to both religions.

New York Times: British High Court Says Jewish School’s Ethnic-Based Admissions Policy Is Illegal

Britain’s Supreme Court declared Wednesday that it was illegal for a Jewish school that favors Jewish applicants to base its admissions policy on a classic test of Jewishness — whether one’s mother is Jewish.

The Freethinker: Cycle Lanes Removed to Appease Jewish Neighborhood Group

A CYCLE lane “war” has broken out in the New York Hasidic enclave of Williamsburg. The lanes, covering 14 blocks of the neighbourhood were sandblasted away last week after Jewish zealots complained that scantily-clad hipster cyclists were distracting them from holy thoughts. According to this report, cyclists attracted to the area made it difficult for the Hasids to obey religious laws forbidding them from staring at members of the opposite sex in various states of undress.

BBC News: Rabbi ‘Offered Cocaine for Sex’

Rabbi Baruch Chalomish, of Upper Park Road, Salford, rented an apartment where he could “relax and have a party”, Manchester Crown Court heard. Police raided the Salford flat and discovered a total of 101 grams (3.6oz) of cocaine and more than £17,000.

Haaretz Israel News: Brazil to Extradite to Israel ‘Rabbi’ Suspected of Child Abuse

A self-appointed rabbi accused by Israeli officials of burning and cutting toddlers as part of a purification ritual will be extradited from Brazil, an official said Thursday. Elior Noam Chen will be picked up Oct. 27 in Brasilia by two Israeli agents, a Brazilian Foreign Ministry spokesman said.

Toronto Sun: Dad Convicted After Trying Home Circumcision on Son

A Vancouver-area man has been convicted of criminal negligence causing bodily harm for a botched amateur circumcision he attempted on his four-year-old son. However, Justice Marion Allan acquitted the man, who along with his family can’t be identified under a publication ban, of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

First of a series that never ends (etc.).  As is so often the case, a rabbi becomes a ‘rabbi’ when they are caught doing something wrong.  There are no black swans: that bird you see over there is not really black, or not really a swan.  There are no bad rabbi: that man you see over there sucking blood from a baby’s mutilated penis is not really bad, or not really a rabbi.  Much of the animal remains in the man.  It takes religion to bring out the monster.

Two years ago (24 November 2007) I wrote about Mamie Manneh. Manneh was accused of illegally importing monkey meat “for religious ceremonies.”  Her lawyer wanted the charges dismissed “because they impinge on the importer’s right to freedom of religion,” that “bushmeat has spiritual significance and Ms. Manneh’s actions were protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” “From her baptism in Liberia to Christmas years later in her adopted New York City, Mamie Manneh never lost the longing to celebrate religious rituals by eating monkey meat.”  Here is what I had to say about that…

Mamie Manneh is an attempted murderer who illegally imported the remains of endangered species into the USA for the purpose of eating them. Handling and consuming this animal can lead to some of the most nightmarish diseases known to humanity. Only spongiform encephalopathy and religion can soften the mind enough to cause a person to hold Mamie’s ‘culture’ or ‘sincere beliefs’ worthy of consideration in this regard. It’s easy to look around and see that no one around you is eating monkey and that almost anyone you ask would be horrified at the idea. It’s easy to not lie to customs. It’s easy to not run over people in cars. It’s easy to not have nine kids that you can’t take care of because you’re in prison for trying to kill a woman. I wish it was easy for judges to laugh and scowl and toss her superstitions out of the courtroom. But that would mean tossing out superstitions that are in better favor with the majority, such as Christianity and Judaism and Islam. How much better it would be if the Constitution of the United States were in effect, and there was no establishment of religion in America.

Time marches on.  In the past two years Manneh has had two more children, bringing the total to eleven.  And for her crime?  A crime Jane Goodall wrote could have “grave consequences on public health?”  A crime which could cause outbreaks of Ebola, measles, tuberculosis and retroviruses similar to HIV among even those who do not eat monkey meat as part of their superstition?  Probation.

Once again, religion is the get-out-of-jail free card.  You can chew off part of a baby’s penis, causing the baby to get herpes which leads to the baby’s death, then another, then another, and get… a warning.  You can neglect your child until they die of curable diseases… but if you are able to demonstrate you mumbled magic spells to an invisible monster that lives in the sky while you watched your child die and did nothing, you can get a reduced sentence.

Spitting contempt is all these morally retarded creeps deserve, and it’s all I have for them.  How much worse, though, that they are given leniency in court.

BBC, Straw retreats over gay hate law:

Ministers have admitted defeat in their efforts to remove a “free speech” defence from new laws against inciting homophobic hatred. MPs have voted four times to scrap it but it has been repeatedly overturned in the Lords, who again last night voted by 179 to 135 to keep it. Among those concerned about the new law were some comedians who feared it would leave them open to prosecution. Ministers argued only words intended to stir up hatred were being targeted. An offence of inciting hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation was brought in by legislation last year – intended to protect gay people from threatening behaviour, amid fears attacks were increasing. [...]

Lord Waddington, who inserted the defence of free speech into legislation covering religious hatred last year, said peers had to maintain consistency. “If we are to finish up with a free speech clause in the religious hatred offence but no free speech clause here, we’re simply asking for trouble.” [...]

Who benefits from the free speech clauses for religious hatred?  Religious people, of course.

Wikipedia, Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006:

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which creates an offence in England and Wales of inciting hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion. [...] Critics of the Bill (before the amendments noted below, adding the requirement for the intention of stirring up hatred) claimed that the Act would make major religious works such as the Bible and the Qur’an illegal in their current form in the UK. The House of Lords passed amendments to the Bill on 25 October 2005 which have the effect of limiting the legislation to “A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening… if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred”. This removed the abusive and insulting concept, and required the intention – and not just the possibility – of stirring up religious hatred.

So when the Bible says “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” – when the Bible says homosexual men should be killed, that does not mean homosexual men should be killed.  The new law in relation to the old law means, well, what does it mean?  It means two things.  First it means the British government has recognized that the Bible contains the exact sort of hate speech they seek to ban.  Second, the majority of Christians are able to pick and choose which unalterable, eternal, exceptionless rules confirmed by their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ they will follow and which ones they will ignore when convenient.  To protect religious people from those with an intention of stirring up hatred, only religious people must be free to stir up hatred.  It’s something that brings Christians, Jews and Muslims together.

Religion: using the State to get a monopoly on hate.

The Associated Press reports Rabbi Elior Noam Chen will be picked up 27 October 2009 in Brasilia by two Israeli agents. “Chen allegedly hit the children in the head and face and burned their hands [as part of a purification ritual]. One child sustained permanent brain damage and is in a vegetative state, according to Israeli officials. In Israel, Chen faces charges of child abuse, violence against minors and conspiracy.” The Associated Press is careful to say that Rabbi Chen is a ‘self-appointed’ Rabbi.  This follows the pattern of the mainstream media disassociating clergy with religion if clergy are caught doing something bad.  Pastors become former pastors, Muslims become Islamists, Rabbis become self-appointed Rabbis, unnecessary “quotes” are added as are the words so-called, etc.  Because religion is always good, and if someone does something bad then they aren’t religious, because religion is always good, la la la la I can’t hear you…

Rabbi Chen should have come to the USA, where mutilating babies is both intimate and convenient.  Why, you can even cut a little baby boy’s penis with knife then suck out the blood with your mouth.  If the little baby boy gets herpes and dies as a result, however, watch out for trouble.  You might be called a bigot if you criticize grown men who suck blood from little baby boy penii.  Because religion is religion, religion is traditional, religion is custom, religion is culture, religion is good.

It is one thing, I am told, to defend the free speech rights of Holocaust deniers; but to engage and defend the content of their views, however cautiously – well, that’s another matter. Smoky’s over the line, says the one consumed with electric suspicion. And questions must follow. What are your motives? Do you hate Jews? Do you still beat your wife? Of course, the abstract argument is fine as far as it goes. It’s just that it doesn’t go very far. If we are serious, the next question must, at some point, intrude. Put another way, if people are being sent to jail for expressing ideas and writing words – and they are – it is only natural and fair to ask: what are those ideas? What are those words? When does a thought expressed become a crime? When it is incitement? When it is a lie? Could it be more complicated? Or less? My position is simple. I believe that you absolutely have to get your fucking hands dirty. I am convinced this is ultimately a matter of decency, and I mean this without irony. [...]

Decades ago, when the works of Henry Miller and William Burroughs and Hubert Selby and Jean Genet and other “literary outlaws” were at issue, expert witnesses lined up to testify as to the redeeming merit of every presumed obscenity. Sometimes the good guys won, and sometimes they lost. But such recourse is largely denied to today’s class of thought criminal. When Ernst Zundel’s lawyer attempted to defend the credibility of her client’s presumptively criminal views, they locked her up. Thus a game is rigged. Grove Press isn’t going to step up this time. It’s easier to sign the petition and shrug. If the lying fuckers should’ve known better, if they’re as bad as CP traders, if they only stoke the embers of a special hate – then a problem may filed away with an asterisk, that might as well be a swastika.  A subject has become inseparable from the stigma that latches. In lieu of discourse, one finds crass signage and deflective satire. A genuine controversy is held hostage by the nuanced strictures of dinner-party form, by the huff and heat of the latest never forget editorial. Yet the noise can only mask a familiar authoritarian gesture. The greatest taboo of our age is sustained in the synchronized cultural choreography of finger-wagging, sometimes from the professoriate, sometimes from the judge’s bench. You are being admonished. You are being told not to consider that there could be a second possibility. You are being told, in so many ways, not to look. And it’s only too easy to abide. All you have to do is read from the script you’ve been handed. Tell yourself it’s of a class with snuff porn or whatever agreed-to boundary. Console yourself with anti-hate sugarplums and bubbles and Frankfurt-schooled excuses. Play it safe. You will have their blessing. Yet something is wrong. Because people are in prison for writing and selling books. Once again, the public library etagerie is arranged for your edification. Construction paper letters stapled to the tackboard. Mark Twain and D.H Lawrence chain-locked in the display case. Harry Potter facing off against familiar cartoon christian enemies. Newsclips about southern school-board busybodies wringing hands over Heather’s two mommies. Banned Books Week as nostalgia, as distraction. As crude extortion, really – once you know what’s missing. And you don’t even feel the chill.

People are in prison for writing and selling books.

Article continues at link.

The Heretical Two are Simon Sheppard [Wikipedia] and Stephen Whittle (Luke O’Farrel).  Their web site is heretical.com.  Previous OVO editorial about The Heretical Two here.  Their words speak for themselves.  Their words  and many of the sites listed below contain words and images I find in error and cruel.  It remains that words and images never hurt anyone.  It is wrong to imprison people for ownership or publication of words or images.  It is maddening that these two are in prison while the governments that put them there are releasing known murderers (US / UK).   Their freedom of speech is no different from that of Jews, Christians and Muslims, no different from political or sexual minorities, no different from yours.  Throw away the freedoms of one and you can be sure the freedoms of the others will not be far behind.

• Antiquity: Anonymous authors pen The Bible.  This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1851: Arthur Schopenhauer writes On Women. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1853: Charles Dickens writes The Noble Savage. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1857: Charles Darwin writes The Variation of Plants and Animals under Domestication. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1875: Charles Darwin writes The Origin of Species. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1884: Sigmund Freud writes Über Coca. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1912 (circa): H. P. Lovecraft writes On the Creation of Niggers. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1920: H. L. Mencken writes In Defense of Women. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1925: Adolph Hitler writes Mein Kampf.  This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1926: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle writes The Adventure of the Three Gables. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 12 June 1942 – 1 August 1944: Ann Frank writes The Diary of a Young Girl. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1940 (circa): Rudyard Kipling writes The Burden of Jerusalem. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1941: Ivan Pavlov writes Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1956: Jens Bjerre writes The Last Cannibals.  This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1960: George Lincoln Rockwell writes In Hoc Signo Vinces, including an essay called The Swastika.
• 1964: Roald Dahl writes Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1976: A. K. Chesterton writes Facing the Abyss. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1979: Douglas Adams writes The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.  This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1980: John Money writes Love and Love Sickness. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1980: Clark Howard writes Zebra. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1984: Isaac Asimov writes Counting the Eons. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 24 March 2005: What is heretical.com? by $14 Worth of Sex.
• 1987: Graham Smith writes When Jim Crow Met John Bull. This work is quoted at heretical.com.
• 1989: Tales of the Holohoax published [archive.org 22 September 2009]
• 1993: Niggers Over America by R. Crumb published in Zap Comics.
• 14 November 1994: R. Crumb regarding his comic Niggers Over America: “I just had to expose all the myths people have of blacks and Jews in the rawest way possible to tilt the scale toward truth.”
• June 1999: Simon Sheppard and David Hannam distribute about 1,500 copies of Our Politicians Are Traitor Criminals. [heretical.com 4 November 2009]
• 8 June 1999: Simon Sheppard and David Hannam are arrested for the distribution of Our Politicians Are Traitor Criminals.  [heretical.com 4 November 2009]
• 19 July 1999: Simon Sheppard is considered for early release on the condition of electronic tagging.  He is rejected for early release because “‘you have stated that you have no intention of obstaining from your offending behaviour, i.e. racist and sexist.”  [heretical.com 4 November 2009]
• 1 August 1999: Simon Sheppard appeals his rejection for early release.  “I am sorry that you disagree with the decision, but the fact is that, because of your views regarding incitement to racial and sexual hatred, you are viewed as danger to the public and to women and people from ethnic minority backgrounds in particular.”  [heretical.com 4 November 2009]
• 8 August 1999: “My heartfelt thanks to all those who have written to me in prison and who have sent postal orders, which are keeping me in small luxuries like chocolate and a cigar at the end of every day to celebrate its passing. The large number of letters I have received have made a great difference to my morale during this ordeal; and I know the support I have been shown has made an impression on the prison authorities. Following assaults by other prisoners I am now segregated. I am reading prodigiously and managing to remain cheerful and optimistic for the future. – Simon Sheppard” [heretical.com 4 November 2009]
• 2 January 2000: Simon Sheppard (and David Hannam?) are charged with Publishing or Distributing racially inflammatory material, Possession of racially inflammatory material and other charges for the distribution of Our Politicians Are Traitor Criminals.  [heretical.com 4 November 2009]
• 6 January 2000: David Hannam pleads guilty to all charges for the distribution of Our Politicians Are Traitor Criminals.  He is sentenced to three months in jail.  [heretical.com 4 November 2009]
• 14 June 2000: Simon Sheppard is sentenced to nine months imprisonment for the distribution of Our Politicians Are Traitor Criminals.  [heretical.com 4 November 2009]
• January – February 2002: Robert Frenz quoted: “Although listed in the ‘links’ folder, Simon Sheppard deserves another plug. Visit his http://www.heretical.com site. On it you’ll find a reproduction of Lincoln Rockwell’s famous BOAT TICKET which were popular hand-outs during the 1960s.”
• 7 March 2005: Whittle writes Dumb Niggers and Gloating Sheeneys.
• 1 June 2005: Whittle writes Hells Bells.
• 10 July 2005: Whittle writes Make Niggers History.
• 7 September 2005: Whittle writes Diversity = Death.
• 15 January 2006: Whittle writes Three Parasites and a Funeral.
• 10 February 2008: Simon Sheppard was found guilty and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment by Alex Linder.
• 4 June 2008: LA Times reports Whittle and Sheppard straight and true by Guessedworker.
• 28 June 2008: Earliest comment regarding Tales of the Holohoax at archive.org.
• 12 July 2008: Holocaust denier convicted of trying to incite race hate online by Rob Preece.
• 14 July 2008: Sheppard found guilty of eleven counts of ‘race hate.’ Whittle found guilty on five counts relating to internet publishing. Charges include: possession of Tales of the Holohoax on 30 March 2005, possession of Tales of the Holohoax on 12 April 2006, publishing Tales of the Holohoax, publication of Dumb Niggers and Gloating Sheeneys, publication of Hells Bells, publication of Make Niggers History, publication of Diversity = Death, publication of Three Parasites and a Funeral, publication of Niggers Over America, publication of When the Goddamn Jews Take Over America, publication of Boat Ticket #2, publication of The Swastika, publication of Auschwitz Holiday Report, publication of Evil Zionist Kikes, publication of Kike Windchimes, distribution of Don’t Be Sheeple, possession of Don’t Be Sheeple on 4 July 2007, possession of Tales of the Holohoax on 4 July 2007.  No evidence is presented at the trial that any ‘racial hatred’ had resulted from the internet material. No evidence is presented at the trial that anyone had accessed the relevant internet pages other the single police officer who had downloaded the website for the purpose of the prosecution.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 14 July 2008: Fugitives from Injustice by North West Nationalists.
• 16 July 2008: Race-hate pair flee to US for political asylum by Rob Preece.
• 16 July 2008: Race-hate pair flee to US for political asylum by John in Basel.
• 16 July 2008: The ‘Heretical 2′ Claim Political Asylum in the USA by The International Campaign for Real History.
• 20 July 2008: Heretical Two Seek Political Asylum in U.S. by Jeff Davis.
• 20 July 2008: One Law for Them? by Sarah Maid of Albion.
• 21 July 2008: Sheppard has seven charges considered related to printed material. The jury is unable to reach a decision.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 22 July 2008: Britain’s Political Refugees in the USA – The Heretical Two! by North West Nationalists.
• 24 July 2008: Latest News on the British Asylum Seekers in the USA – Heretical Two! by North West Nationalists.
• 24 July 2008: In Other Bizarre British Free-Speech Cases by Brendan Kiley.
• 24 July 2008: Update on Heretical Two! Donations Please by North West Nationalists.
• 25 July 2008: Re: The Heretical Duo & Closing the Border Between the UK and Ireland by North West Nationalists.
• 26-27 July 2008: Sheppard and Whittle leave England.  They fly to Ireland, then the United States.  They surrender to authorities in Los Angeles International Airport as a way of seeking political asylum. [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 31 July 2008: The Heretical 2, Asylum Seekers the Refugee Industry Won’t be Fighting for by Nicholas Stix.
• 28 July 2008: The Heretical Press Website by Arthur Cristian.
• 31 July 2008: Fund Holder for Heretical Two by North West Nationalists.
• July 2008 – June 2009: Sheppard and Whittle are held in Santa Ana Jail by the Department of Homeland Security.  Correspondents were asked not to place return address stickers on envelopes as all letters with labels of any kind were sent back marked unauthorized. Sheppard and Whittle can only send two replies per week and so used heretical.com to thank people who had written messages of support and requested they kept writing. [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 2 August 2008: Update on Heretical Two by BPP WD by John in Basel.
• 2 August 2008: The Heretical Two by ironwand.
• 2 August 2008: The Heretical Two by Jack Black.
• 5 August 2008: Heretical Two – Latest News! by North West Nationalists.
• 6 August 2008: Lady Renouf Speaks About the Heretical Two by  John in Basel.
• 7 August 2008: Heretical Two Appeal Fund by North West Nationalists.
• 11 August 2008: Simon Sheppard & Steve Whittle Seek Asylum Over Thought Offense Charges by jailingopinions.com.
• 11 August 2008: Fund Created for the Heretical Two by Socrates.
• 22 August 2008: Heretical Two – Latest News! by North West Nationalists.
• 23 August 2008: Heretical Two Requests for Political Asylum by hereticaltwo.nfshost.com.
• 9 September 2008: Payment Problem to Heretical Two by John in Basel.
• 12 September 2008: Online race hate pair who fled to US launch appeals by Rob Preece.
• 17 September 2008: Sheppard and Whittle have their first immigration court hearing.  Bruce Leichty is their defense attorney.  The residing judge claims she did not have the power to release Sheppard and Whittle under the defensive procedures adopted by the US authorities. [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 17 September 2008: The Heretical 2, Requests for Asylum and Letters from Santa Ana Jail by Nicholas Stix.
• 29 September 2008: Jailed British “Heretics” Hire Asylum Lawyer by hereticaltwo.nfshost.com.
• 5 October 2008: Dear Mr. Huhne by Kate Dermody.
• 14 October 2008:  Sheppard and Whittle have an ‘asylum-only proceeding.’  Immigration Judge Rose Peters resides.  Sheppard and Whittle attempt release before the ruling, which is denied by the Judge. [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 18 October 2008: Heretical Two Denied Bail Hearing by Alex.
• 21 October 2008: “Heretical Two” Denied Bail by Paul Ballard.
• 24 October 2008: No Remedy for Jailed British ‘Heretics’ by GWR.
• 13 November 2008: Sheppard and Whittle have a ‘calendar meeting’ of the Immigration Court.  Judge Peters set the merits (main) appeal for three afternoons in blocks of four hours from 2 pm on March 10, 12 and 24 of 2009. [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 8 December 2008: Sheppard retried in his absence in Leeds Crown Court, England.  Six charges are considered, one charge is dropped.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 22 December 2008: Sheppard retrial in his absence in Leeds Crown Court, England deferred to 5 January 2009.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 5 January 2009: Sheppard retrial in his absence in Leeds Crown Court, England continued.  Professor Rabkin argues Jews are a religion and not a race.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 6 January 2009: Sheppard retrial in his absence in Leeds Crown Court, England continued.  Jury deliberates.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 8 January 2009: Sheppard retrial in his absence in Leeds Crown Court, England continues.  Sheppard found guilty on three counts relating to Tales of the Holocaust and later in the day by a majority verdict on two charges relating to Don’t be Sheeple.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 8 January 2009: Guilty verdicts in retrial for race hate pair who fled to US by Yorkshire Post.
• 8 January 2009: Two guilty of inciting racial hatred against Jews by The Crown Prosecution Service.
• 9 January 2009: Race-hate pair face jail after mocking Holocaust by Rob Preece.
• 9 January 2009: ‘Forthright’ opinions play down Holocaust by Rob Preece.
• 11 January 2009: Help The Heretical Two by Paul Ballard.
• 24 January 2009: Simon Sheppard & Stephen Whittle, “The Heretical Two” by Andy.
• 21 February 2009: “Holocaust Fundamentalism” and the War on Dissent by Mark Green.
• March 2009: Police Close In on Race Hate Duo by Awaiting a Western Renaissance.
• 10 March 2009: Main Hearing against Sheppard and Whittle in their absence in Leeds Crown Court, England.  Lasts 90 minutes and concerned documentation.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 12 March 2009: Sheppard and Whittle, wearing handcuffs and leg irons, have asylum hearing before Judge Peters.  Sheppard and Whittle present their own case.  The US Government is represented by attorney Miss Myers. Sheppard and Whittle speak of their experiences at the hands of the British police and Crown Prosecution Service.  English counsel Adrian Davies confirms and gives evidence about the relevant provisions of English law (the Public Order Act 1986, as amended) and the English Court’s assertion of jurisdiction over web pages hosted on a server located in Torrance, California.  Court adjourned to 1pm 24 March 2009.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 14 March 2009: Sympathy for the “Heretical Two” by Chip Smith.
• 24 March 2009:  Sheppard and Whittle, wearing handcuffs and leg irons, make closing arguments for asylum before Judge Peters.  US Government attorney Miss Myers makes closing arguments against asylum.  Judge Peters reserves judgment.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 28 March 2009: Police close in on race hate duo by This Is Hull and East Riding.
• 28 March 2009: Holocaust-Denying Brits Languish in Santa Ana Jail, Become Worldwide Far-Right Celebrities by Gustavo Arellano.
• 30 March 2009: Sheppard retrial in his absence in Leeds Crown Court, England continues.  Hearing deferred until 15 May 2009 to await the decision of the American asylum court.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009].  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 31 March 2009: US asylum case of web race-hate pair ‘could drag on’ by Rob Preece.
• 14 March 2009: Sympathy for the “Heretical Two” by Chip Smith updated.
• 29 March 2009: Monday Sentencing for Heretical Two by Mia.
• 5 April 2009: Sheppard and Whittle lose their appeal for asylum.  Sheppard and Whittle given thirty days to appeal.  Sheppard declines opportunity to appeal.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 5 April 2009: “Dear Harold: You were right. Our asylum claim has been denied, as has witholding of removal. We were thinking of appealing and sticking it out, but really this place is replete with people hanging on hoping for a miracle that’s never going to happen, and we don’t want to join them. Our barrister told us when he visited to testify for us that this immigration judge, Rose Peters, has granted asylum to an IRA murderer who had killed two policemen, supposedly on political grounds, so that’s the level of hypocrisy we’re up against. Better we think to go back to England, face the music, and get it over with. The ground for refusing asylum was that our prosecution in the UK did not constitute persecution (i.e. the government attorney and the IJ, both women, agree with it. The government attorney even argued against the First Amendment.) I believe that because this is a subjective assessment it is quite difficult to appeal against, and we could spend years taking it through various courts. Best wishes, Simon Sheppard & Stephen Whittle.” [Nationalists Online]
• 15 April 2009: “Heretical Two” British Dissidents Simon Sheppard And Stephen Whittle Reportedly Denied Political Asylum by White Reference.
• 15 April 2009: Heretical Two Denied Political Asylum in USA by GWR.
• 17 April 2009: Race-hate pair who fled to US refused asylum by Rob Preece.
• 6 May 2009: What the Heretical 2 Case Says about the Federal “Hate Crimes” Bill by Nicholas Stix.
• 18 May 2009: Another Letter from Stephen Whittle of the Heretical 2 by Nicholas Stix.
• June 2009: Refugee Week by Awaiting a Western Renaissance.
• 3 June 2009: Men bedeviled in bid for sanctuary by Dana Parsons.
• 4 June 2009: ‘Heretical Two’ to be Deported from USA by GWR.
• 4 June 2009: Persecution is Complicated: An Update on the “Heretical Two” by Chip Smith.
• 5 June 2009: Race-hate Britons seeking asylum in U.S. to be deported after judge rejects ‘free speech’ plea by Mail Foreign Service.
• 10 June 2009: Race hate pair set to be deported to Britain by Rob Preece.
• 16 June 2009: Sheppard and Whittle deported from the United States.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 17 June 2009: Sheppard and Whittle arrive in London.  They are arrested, taken briefly to Leeds Court, then sent to prison.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 18 June 2009: Heretical Two Appear at Leeds Crown Court by GWR.
• July 2009: Web Racists to Appeal Unsafe Sentence by Awaiting a Western Renaissance.
• 10 July 209: Sheppard and Whittle appear at Leeds Crown Court.  Sheppard is sentenced to four years and ten months.  Sheppard’s sentence is twelve months concurrent on the three counts relating to ‘Tales of the Holohoax’, followed by a consecutive sentence of twelve months in aggregate on the two counts relating to ‘Don’t Be Sheeple’, followed by two years and six months in aggregate on the eleven Internet counts, followed by four months on the Bail Act charge.  Whittle is sentence to two years and four months.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 10 July 2009: Pair jailed for web race crimes by BBC.
• 10 July 2009: The neo-Nazi ‘asylum seekers’ by BBC.
• 10 July 2009: Landmark ruling as internet race-hate fugitives locked up by Olwen Dudgeon.
• 10 July 2009: Key victory for human decency by Yorkshire Post.
• 10 July 2009: Heretical Two Jailed for ‘Race Hate’ Crimes by GWR.
• 10 July 2009: Two jailed for online racial incitement [first listing] [second listing] by Index on Censorship.
• 10 July 2009: A Couple of Whining Bitches by Big Mental Disease.
• 11 July 2009: Cosmodromium Supports Heretical.com by James D. Sass.
• 11 July 2009: Nutzies are Weird by Slackbastard.
• 12 July 2009: Two Writers by Chip Smith.
• 13 July 2009: Sheppard and Whittle imprisoned for free speech in UK by James Edwards.
• 14 July 2009: Court of Appeal (Richards LJ, Jack J and HHJ Baker QC) give leave to appeal against conviction on all the Internet counts but refused leave to appeal with respect to the hard copy counts.  Full appeal to take place in 2009 and to take a day.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 14 July 2009: Quest for justice that goes beyond borders by Denis MacShane.
• 14 July 2009: Jailed race-hate pair win go-ahead for appeal by Rob Preece.
• 25 July 2009: Why does Britain ignore antisemitism? by Denis McShane.
• 29 July 2009: Heretical Two Win the First Round by James Brewster.
• 31 July 2009: Forfeiture hearing against Sheppard and Whittle before Judge Grant at Leeds Crown Court.  Sheppard and Whittle physically attacked on their way to court.  Sheppard fears his jaw is broken.  This is not the case although he still had difficulty eating several days later.  Judge Grant decides every contested point against Sheppard.  Judge Grant orders the forfeiture and destruction of office equipment which Simon had serviced.  An appeal is lodged against forfeiture of the printers, computers and other office equipment.  [heretical.com 22 September 2009]
• 31 July 2009: The Heretical Two by Trevor Blake.
• 1 August 2009: The Heretical Two by Klint Finley.
• 1 August 2009: Heretical Two in Court Again by GWR.
• 20 August 2009 – 13 December 2009: Niggers Over America by R. Crumb exhibited by David Zwerner Gallery in New York City. Sheppard had been found guilty of race hate crimes for publication of Niggers Over America by R. Crumb.
• September 2009: freethehereticaltwo.com by various authors.
• 22 September 2009: Heretical Two Timeline by Trevor Blake.
• 22 September – 5 October 2009 (circa): Message from Simon Sheppard. “I feel fortunate in being in Armley prison for a cause and for standing up for my beliefs, rather than incarcerated for some sordid, drug-induced crime. It is obvious that three-quarters of the people are here due to government incompetence or indifference, either through allowing the import of enormous quantities of heroin or failing to provide employment. The establishment’s love affair with globalization and failure to confront obvious problems of over-population are chiefly at fault. I am doing reasonably well at present though dreading another change of cell-mate. Recently I had three different cell-mates in as many days, and a proportion are complete head cases, making me feel like a resident psychiatrist. I console myself that I am making a sacrifice for my people and although I would obviously rather not be here it is superior to being a a POW in a Japanese wartime camp, or interned for the duration of the World War 2 under Britain’s 18B Regulations. I will come through this ordeal one day. I am still held as a category B ‘remand prisoner’ in Armley Prison, Leeds – pending the appeal to the High Court in late Autumn 2009 on internet publishing charges.”
• 2 October 2009: British “Heretical Two” hire US asylum lawyer by Club of Now.
• 12 October 2009: Me and the H-Bomb Part Two: The Gas Chamber of Samuel Crowell by Chip Smith.
• 17 October 2009: Blogs from all over teh interwebs by Kevin Slaughter.
• 18 October 2009: Amnesty International, Two Flavors by Trevor Blake.
• 28 October 2009: Jack Hunter, Hate is Not a Crime by Trevor Blake.
• 30 October 2009: (circa): Stephen Whittle moved from HMP Leeds to Everthorpe Prison. [heretical.com 30 October 2009]
• 5 November 2009: Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle by Threatened Voices.
• 27 December 2009: Prosecution of the Heretical Two by James D. Sass.
• 3 January 2010: Canaries in the Coal Mine by Jack Donovan.
• 24 January 2010: The Heretical Two by eccnineten.
• 29 January 2010: “The appeal against conviction on internet publishing on a foreign website has been lost. Fortunately, the appeal judges ruled the sentences were excessive and reduced Simon Sheppard’s sentence by a year to 3 years and 10 months and Stephen Whittle’s sentence by six months to 1 year and 10 months.” [heretical.com]
• 31 January 2010: Heretical Two Lose Appeal, But With Sentence Reduction by James Fulford.
• 18 May 2010: “At least he’s not in prison for year like the Heretical Two are.” ATBOTL.
• 18 May 2010: “Stephen was released from prison on May 18th to a hostel in Preston, Lancashire subject to restrictions on his movements and political associations.” [heretical.com circa June 2010]
• 10 June 2010: Internet Repression by Eddy Morrison.
• 12 June 2010: Oh Noes!  Wigan Mike Goes to Court Again by Slackbastard.
• 15 June 2010: Simon Sheppard and Steve Whittle, The Heretical Two, H2 by Fragileswan.
• 9 July 2010: “The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, formerly the judicial committee of the House of Lords, has refused the H2 leave to appeal. It is the practice of this Court not to give reasons for refusing leave to appeal, whereas it would be considered an error of law for any other court not to give reasons for its decisions. The H2 are now entitled to petition the European Court of Human Rights for leave to appeal to that court, which they could not do before, as would be petitioners are obliged to exhaust all domestic recourse first. Meanwhile, Steve, who was out on bail at a bail hostel in Blackburn which he found fairly agreeable, has been caught on the internet in breach of bail conditions, and sent to Preston prison. He was found by the police using the internet in Blackburn public library [the UK is no different to China and Burma in treatment of dissidents!!!]. Steve would, as ever, appreciate messages of support to show that the H2 are not forgotten in gaol.” [heretical.com]
• 15 July 2010: “On 15th July 2010 Simon was moved from Armley to a privately run prison.” [heretical.com]
• 17 August 2010: Simon Sheppard by Encyclopedia Dramatica.

You may have noticed that people who convert to religion after the age of 20 or so are generally more zealous than people who grew up with the same religion.  People who grow up with a religion learn how to cope with its more inconvenient parts by partitioning them off, rationalizing them away, or forgetting about them.  Religious communities actually protect their members from religion in one sense – they develop an unspoken consensus on which parts of their religion members can legitimately ignore.  New converts sometimes try to actually do what their religion tells them to do.  I remember many times growing up when missionaries described the crazy things their new converts in remote areas did on reading the Bible for the first time – they refused to be taught by female missionaries; they insisted on following Old Testament commandments; they decided that everyone in the village had to confess all of their sins against everyone else in the village; they prayed to God and assumed He would do what they asked; they believed the Christian God would cure their diseases.  We would always laugh a little at the naivete of these new converts; I could barely hear the tiny voice in my head saying but they’re just believing that the Bible means what it says…

How do we explain the blindness of people to a religion they grew up with? Cultural immunity. Europe has lived with Christianity for nearly 2000 years. European culture has co-evolved with Christianity. Culturally, memetically, it’s developed a tolerance for Christianity. These new Christian converts, in Uganda, Papua New Guinea, and other remote parts of the world, were being exposed to Christian memes for the first time, and had no immunity to them. [...]

The reason I bring this up is that intelligent people sometimes do things more stupid than stupid people are capable of.  There are a variety of reasons for this; but one has to do with the fact that all cultures have dangerous memes circulating in them, and cultural antibodies to those memes.  The trouble is that these antibodies are not logical.  On the contrary; these antibodies are often highly illogical.  They are the blind spots that let us live with a dangerous meme without being impelled to action by it.  The dangerous effects of these memes are most obvious with religion; but I think there is an element of this in many social norms.  We have a powerful cultural norm in America that says that all people are equal (whatever that means); originally, this powerful and ambiguous belief was counterbalanced by a set of blind spots so large that this belief did not even impel us to free slaves or let women or non-property-owners vote.  We have another cultural norm that says that hard work reliably and exclusively leads to success; and another set of blind spots that prevent this belief from turning us all into Objectivists.

A little reason can be a dangerous thing.  The landscape of rationality is not smooth; there is no guarantee that removing one false belief will improve your reasoning instead of degrading it.  Sometimes, reason lets us see the dangerous aspects of our memes, but not the blind spots that protect us from them.  Sometimes, it lets us see the blind spots, but not the dangerous memes.  Either of these ways, reason can lead an individual to be unbalanced, no longer adapted to their memetic environment, and free to follow previously-dormant memes through to their logical conclusions.    (To paraphrase Steve Weinberg, “For a smart person to do something truly stupid, they need a theory.”  Actually, I could have quoted him directly – “stupid” is just a lighter shade of “evil”.  Communism and fascism both begin by exercising complete control over the memetic environment, in order to create a new man stripped of cultural immunity, who will do whatever they tell him to.)

Article continues.  High recommendations to Less Wrong and Overcoming Bias. – Trevor

Ecclesiastes 9:10.  Trevor Blake, digital image.  Public Domain, August 2009.

This is another installment in our continuing series of Things Atheists Didn’t Do.

Still More Things Atheists Didn’t Do | Quick Hitts

The couple are suing their neighbours, saying that their human rights are being breached, and are claiming up to £5,000 damages. [Please go live in a cave.]

Jewish couple sue over lighting that makes them ‘work’ on sabbath -Times Online

Defiance of Youth. Members of the Communist Youth League are still paying very little attention to the anti-religious front – such is the common news from where our correspondents are. Member of the Communist Youth League: “We shall climb up to heaven, and chase away all the gods!” Editor: “It would be much better, comrade, if you looked at what is going on in the world, and how on earth, under your very nose, priests, protestant preachers, mullahs and rabbis are trying to attract the youth into their dens. We must struggle with religion with deeds, not with loud words.” – 15 February 1931.

[Art and translation from a collection of anti-religious Soviet posters at Bryn Mawr college.]

The Bronx and Morocco this week, and elsewhere, all over, on an ongoing basis – and why is it that fanatical Muslims so relish attacking Jews? Is it really all about Israel?

Anti-Semitism in the Islamic world has often been attributed to the baneful influence of Christianity. Many analysts assert that the Islamic designation of Jews (as well as Christians) as ‘People of the Book’ indicates a higher level of respect for them than was manifested by Christians who derided Jews as bestial ‘Christ-killers.’ Journalist Lawrence Wright writes in this vein in The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11: “Until the end of World War II [...] Jews lived safely – although submissively – under Muslim rule for 1,200 years, enjoying full religious freedom; but in the 1930s, Nazi propaganda on Arabic-language shortwave radio, coupled with slanders by Christian missionaries in the region, infected the area with this ancient Western prejudice [anti-Semitism]. After the war, Cairo became a sanctuary for Nazis, who advised the military and the government. The rise of the Islamist movement coincided with the decline of fascism, but they overlapped in Egypt, and the germ passed into a new carrier.”

This is a common view, but in reality there is a strong native strain of anti-Semitism in Islam, which is rooted in the Qur’an. The Muslim holy book contains a great deal of material that forms the foundation for a hatred of Jews that exists independently of the Christian variety. It is also, in many ways, more virulent and harder to eradicate. The Qur’an portrays the Jews as the craftiest, most persistent, and most implacable enemies of the Muslims – and there is no Muslim equivalent of the Second Vatican Council to mitigate against destructive interpretations. The Qur’anic material on the Jews remains the prism through which far too many Muslims see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – and Jews in general – to this day.

[Article continues at link. See also more about the Bronx bombing, the Morocco bombing, fascist / Muslim collaboration in WW2 [1][2][3], fascist / Muslim collaboration today, antisemitism in the Qur’an, and antisemitism in the Bible. Religion brings people together – to hate each other. – Trevor Blake]

“Every effort must be made to combat anti-Semitism wherever it is found.”

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Pope decries ‘ugly’ anti-Semitism

Did this group make the “Hate” animation I’m looking for?

Men Of Reform Judaism: Jewish Chautauqua Society