Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Limits to Freedom of Religion Need to be Explored in a Court of Law

With all due respect toward the Freedom of Religion clause of the U.S. Constitution, I welcome the day when a religious congregation or non-profit organization sponsored by a local religious group in this country, is formally charged in a court of law with having harbored or aided and abetted alleged terrorists who allegedly committed or plotted to commit an act of terrorism.

The many recent news stories about planned or actual acts of violence by Arab terrorists residing inside the United States point to the urgent need for criminal prosecution and civil-law lawsuits against any and all religious groups that allegedly sponsored or co-sponsored or were allegedly complicitous in, or allegedly served as spawning grounds for, that alleged terrorism.

The inevitability is that at least one religious congregation in the USA or non-profit group owned by a religious congregation in the United States, will be permanently closed by court order in coming months. That inevitability will occur after that religious group's many ties to terroristic violence are officially cited and deplored by a judge in a court of law in the United States.

And when that legal precedent is established, the "Freedom of Religion" clause of the U.S. Constitution will have to be viewed in a very different light.

Among the types of conduct by religious groups---or by groups sponsored by religious groups, for that matter---that should and must be deplored and strongly discouraged or prohibited through the American legal system include:

(1) anonymous communications;
(2) violations of the privacy rights of non-members;
(3) knowingly fraudulent communications;
(4) cited "support" for attempts to overthrow the U.S. Government through the use of violence, any such conduct comprising treason;
(5) stated support for the use of observable violence by private citizens;
(6) thought-control projects and brainwashing attempts that involve the hostage-taking or kidnapping of, or involuntary participation by, someone who is NOT a member of that religious group, and whose own beliefs are significantly different from the beliefs of that religious group;
(7) secretive hostage-taking projects in which an unwitting victim is involuntarily and against his wishes subjected to a "snuff movie" attempt in which one or more persons with ties to a religious group that has labeled the planned victim as evil (as "an Anti-Christ figure," "a pariah to our religious group," "an enemy to our religious group," or "a sinister person," for instance) allegedly attempt to commit homicide against the planned victim or allegedly trigger a fatal injury to the planned victim.
(8) the use of noise pollution by a religious group as a means of "punishing" someone whose political or religious or personal or philosophical beliefs differ dramatically from, and conflict with, those of the religious group deploying noise pollution as a weapon against the victim.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please Leave Your Comments Here.