Thursday, March 10, 2016

Fighting the Establishment of an American State Religion -- Part 3

I wrote the text below the break on September 25, 2014 but I did not publish it. I was waiting for more developments to evolve that would help make it abundantly clear how dangerous it is not to fight such developments before they are fully formed. When climate guru RFK Jr. stated he wished there was a law he could punish his opponents with, I observed that it was good he could only wish.

However developments have moved on rapidly to erase that sense of security.

Today, on episode 4 of LevinTV.com, viewers heard this:
 
This clip ends with these words:
"To use our laws to criminalize politics, to use our laws to compel a belief system, is as tyrannical as is possibly imaginable."
It is of supreme importance that people know that a religion -- a belief system -- need not center on worship of a god.
Religion: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
Mr. Levin almost got to the point where he sees what I see. It sounds like he's edging to fight increasingly heavy-handed government efforts to protect Climate Change belief in a way that is in violation of the 1st Amendment. That Amendment bans the establishment of a state religion. This essay is written in hopes that the constitutional lawyer in him will latch on to the idea.

For easy reference, here are links to part 1 and part 2.



The alternate title for part 3 is "Those Forced to Pass a Religious Test Have Standing in Court"

[Robert F.] Kennedy Jr. accused skeptical politicians of “selling out the public trust.” “Those guys are doing the Koch Brothers bidding and are against all the evidence of the rational mind, saying global warming does not exit. They are contemptible human beings. I wish there were a law you could punish them with." --http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/21/robert-f-kennedy-jr-wants-to-jail-his-political-opponents-accuses-koch-brothers-of-treason-they-ought-to-be-serving-time-for-it/

Today Mr Kennedy spoke as a preacher of his global warming faith.

He condemns in extreme terms all who don't believe as he does.

Fortunately for us he can only wish for such a law.

Dear Reader, please think well about how you can help get the message to other sane Americans about how dangerous is such madness and why it must be fought.

For if we fail to stop the growth of this Sustainability worship and its growing call for government assistance that such beliefs be obeyed under penalty of law (as Mr. Kennedy wishes), then we will have lost for our descendants the liberty that our forebears fought to gain and died to preserve.

Already millions of scientists, engineers, teachers, technicians and administrators have been affected by such beliefs. And since so many of them work for institutions that are provided funding from government, that makes the governments liable.

And that is unconstitutional!
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. -- Article VI, paragraph 3, United States Constitution.
In parts 1 and 2 of this series I introduced to people the form of the growing state religion and the thinking and tactics of the people who have been foisting it.

Here I am trying to explain in layman's term how I envision the fight against the growing state religion could legitimately play out both in court and in the court of public opinion.


In one way or the other, the question "Do you believe global warming is real and caused by human activity?" have been asked of scientists, academics, tech workers, etc. Any who lost jobs or promotions or were harassed into providing suitable responses in order to stay in good graces all have standing in court against the institutions and the governments which provide the funding.  Because each plaintive who failed to answer in alignment with Sus beliefs all failed a religious test. Thus it would seem that each and every one has standing in court. They have ample evidence that they have been harmed by these developments.

Frankly, I fear the cards are stacked against the plaintiffs in court. The courts have become too heavily laden with Judges who go along with the idea of "compelling state interest." This increases the likelihood that legal rigmarole thrown up by the pro-govt side will be sustained. The aim will be to get the most troublesome cases thrown out and allow the weaker cases through. Of course the SSM commentators will swear it's the reverse, but it will be done that way so that a precedent can be set favoring the government's behavior. Their actions will still be unconstitutional, but the decision will  provide them enough of a thin veil of legitimacy -- which will be bought by enough sheeple with the SSM help -- to allow our enemies to think they can sleep well. They always figure that the consequences of their violating Natural Law will be far enough down the road that some other poor schmucks will have to face the music.

Here is hoping that they've gone too far and I've provided some useful thoughts to take advantage of it.

3 comments:

  1. This is similar to the concept that atheism is a religion, or even humanism, as it is a belief ABOUT God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In some ways, sure. But the adherents have always denied that. With this wider definition of religion not requiring a god, they can't get off the hook so easily.

      I think you might find some interest in the following.

      Two weeks ago, at Gates of Vienna, two regular commenters had a discussion, one defending values of theism the other of scientism.

      That discussion can be found just above the comment I left at http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/03/danish-imam-caught-on-hidden-camera-he-who-turns-away-from-islam-must-be-killed/#comment-441975

      After providing them that wider definition, this was the heart of my comment:

      The discrediting of Judeo-Christian religions that Nimrod referred to was in the service of those who saw science as supremely important and so felt it right to eliminate obstacles placed in the path of advancing Scientism.

      Mark H sees the damage posed to both in large part because there is a neo-pagan element that has taken over the sciences to advance itself. Those who believe in Sustainability are drumming out of the sciences any who don’t support their fraud of human caused climate change. The ultimate goal of that is less humans cause less climate change and provides them a “moral” cover to hide their misanthropy — the belief that humanity supremely sucks and needs to be eliminated. Hard to be more pagan than that other than live babies are not yet thrown into infernos.

      Delete
  2. Pascal, I believe religion of any kind can be counted as one of Man's road blocks to the true realities of life. And, in my opinion, that reality is on this plane and beyond after our bodily death, a death that really is just a metamorphism into our spiritual true selves or spirits of light, as some refer to.

    We as a species have lost much of what we once had due to natural and un-natural catastrophes that some archeologists have managed to unearth over the past decades, but the establishment wishes to keep secret from the rest of us.

    That there is a God I have no doubt, but to deny that simple fact which any truly honest and observant person could readily accept on the overwhelming evidence for such a being, is probably the most unedifying aspect to this species that we call Man and on all the available evidence the biggest folly of all because once one can deny the existence of God then all other possibilities are available to them other than the true path of why we are born into this world.

    That which now passes as western Christianity has been compromised through vested influences over the centuries and by the long march through the institutions that the Soviets implemented, while now in our own time Putin finds a problem to deal with.

    Kind of ironic isn't it?

    ReplyDelete

View My Stats