The following letters-to-the-editor appeared in the Times Tribune of Palo Alto, California between 1981 and 1989. All my writings promote the necessity of resurrecting the constitutional basis of our freedom - the principle of individual rights. The newspaper created the letters' titles.
This set contains:
1 Right to abortion really leads to a larger issue
2 No comparisons between UN declaration and our own
3 The two dangerous words in the Pledge of Allegiance
4 Conditions for the success of decriminalization
5 Neither God nor the state is the source of our rights
6 Disclaimers needed in teaching religious history
7 Churches themselves add to moral bankruptcy
8 To preserve freedom we must reject altruism
9 To escape racism, appreciate individual rights
10 Religious bias distorts panel's view of pornography
11 Judges should defend the Constitution, not the Bible
12 Keep them separate!
13 Tyranny should not be tolerated in any country
14 Freedom-of-religion rights are being trampled
15 Toward theocracy?
16 A woman's right
17 The abortion decision
18 Bishops should use wealth of the Catholic Church
19 Hail to capitalism
20 Religion and inquiry
21 Religion's tax raids
22 Let's not stand idle
- A.YOUNG13 -
***************************************
"Right to abortion really leads to larger issue"
Abrogating a woman's right to choose to procreate or not is much more a ploy aimed at wiping out all individual freedom by destroying its only guarantee - the Constitution's principle of individual rights.
The takeover of our government and the establishment of a theocracy by the religious element behind the anti-abortion movement will be assured when the principle of individual rights dies to any coercive principle religion might install.
Even if a potential human life could ask permission to be born through a woman's body, it has no special right
dies to any coercive principle religion might install.
Even if a potential human life could ask permission to be born through a woman's body, it has no special right superseding her right to choose against it. In spite of the fact that a healthy woman's body will conceive automatically, with no referencing of her thoughts for a consent, she still owns and governs the process and materials of her reproductive system and is not a slave to them.
A newly developing human's awareness may not originate from the woman, but the physical formation of the "vehicle" stands parasitically to her own body at all times and becomes a gift only if she chooses to grant it. In granting the gift, she initially lends it the protection secured by her own individual right until the point of birth, when the child gains full rights under the law.
/// Religionists fervently state that they comprise the honest and benevolent "body of Christ," but their actions against freedom's maintenance, through misrepresentation of individual rights, raises the question of whether they may truly be the blinded advocates of their own beguiling Antichrist.
To prove allegiance to the Constitution, government must declare that upholding the principle of individual rights is its prime objective. If it does not, it fails its only reason for being.
As the "wall" separating church and state crumbles, women will be the first victims under its rubble.
A.YOUNG13 4-11-89
---------------------------------------
"No comparison's between U.N. declaration and our own"
The United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains so many contradictions that it can be used by any dictatorship to justify the continued enslavement of a people.
The socialization of the United States into the USS of A will sadly be brought about by unwitting Americans who warp the concept of freedom with the irrational idea that governments have the right to "freely" take the earnings of its productive citizens and sacrifice them to any other person or group claiming every kind of need.
Apparently, voluntary charity is not the ethical way under this document's requirement of sacrifice.
The reason Article 3 of the Declaration contains "...security of person" instead of "...pursuit of happiness" is that the former allows for unquestioned acceptance of socialism's coercive means of attaining social security, whereas capitalism's latter ethically maintains that one's securing of well-being and happiness requires an individual's uncoerced choice to productively pursue it before ever meriting it at all.
The Declaration's repetitive referencing to human rights, collectively, is done intentionally to promote collectivism's subordinative view of the individual as evidenced by the commission of mentioning our Constitution's principle of individual rights, which itself is the reason individual freedom in the United States is greater than anywhere else.
Any superficial similarity of this declaration to our own serves only to disguise the fact that it is an instrument of socialism and communism. The concepts of freedom, liberty and rights are deceptively used as pleasing, familiar attention-getters to delay one from asking the question of just who will be forced to pay for all its social servicing -- and seeing one's self sacrificed in the answer!
This document obnoxiously states that we have a social duty beyond respecting individual rights and responsible maintenance of our own lives to pay for anyone else's failure to do the same. Why should we have to pay for someone else's mindless breeding, or buy them a house, car, food or even their children's education?
mindless breeding, or buy them a house, car, food or even their children's education?
Socialism's success in this country is evidenced by the fact that we surely do pay for it all to an ever-increasing degree.
A.YOUNG13 1-3-89
---------------------------------------
"The two dangerous words in the Pledge of Allegiance"
The original Pledge of Allegiance read: "... one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." With the insertion of the words "under God" into the Pledge, its integrity was destroyed by making it an affirmation of religious belief.
Coercing any person to say the Pledge is done so illegally by an unethical government that has permitted itself to be used by preachers who want nothing less than the strong arm of the law to help them indoctrinate, on a grand-scale, their religious tenets and belief in a god. The corrupted version of the Pledge now truly reads: "...one nation, under God's law and not the Constitution's principle of individual rights, divisible by those who believe against those who do not, with liberty for the believers and injustice for those who will not submit."
During the years of the Great Fear, when anyone not embracing Christian ideals was suspected of being communist, religious fervor was so intense that the government cowered under the paranoia and self-underminingly set up inroads for future theocratic takeover. Astonishingly, between 1954 and 1956, not only was the original intent of the Pledge of Allegiance changed, but it was made mandatory that the inculcating motto "In God We Trust," which also replaced our national motto "E Pluribus Unum" (One Out Of Many), be carried on all currency and coins.
This probably could not be perpetrated now in the present day of religious scandal and hypocrisy, but most politicians still pay lip service to preachers to lead the public into thinking they are irreproachably honest, moral men. To the extent politicians fail to uphold the Constitution's principle of individual rights and choose instead to attempt establishment of church dogma, they remain veritable agents of a foreign theocracy whose rule is inimically aimed at the freedom we still possess in the United States.
Without the ethical principle of individual rights, the gruesome reality we see in the warring theocracies outside our country will move inside our borders and then we may learn, too late, what it means to be "...one nation, under God..."
A.YOUNG13 9-24-88
---------------------------------------
"Conditions for the success of decriminalization"
Introducing state-approved drug sources as a means to stop bloody traficking and crime, by intentionally destroying the current value and profitability of drugs through an effective capitalistic competition, might work only to the extent that present punitive laws concerning the personal use of drugs are dropped in order to successfully win over "customers."
The idea that the number of drug abusers would increase with decriminalization and low-cost drug availability may remain an irrational fear of those who fail to understand that man's well-being's betterment will first depend upon his success in understanding educative, rational appeals.
The plan's long-term objective, should not be content with just taking the cost and violence out of drugs. It must include a comprehensive, scientific deglamorization promoting the understanding of just how and why a drug affects people differently relative to each person's pri
just taking the cost and violence out of drugs. It must include a comprehensive, scientific deglamorization promoting the understanding of just how and why a drug affects people differently relative to each person's private psycho-epistemological practices.
The common allure and trap of drugs is the misconception that the drug itself is the source of intensified emotional well-being, maintainable only through repeated use. Drugged persons who do become morbidly paranoid, to the point of being dangerous to themselves and others, provide sufficient evidence that what a mind holds as true, be it rational or irrational, controls the experience's outcome.
Not only drug users should heed what ought to be so self-evident to an "expanded awareness": that one's life experience, for its survival's sake, is an automatic psychosomatic process which, depending on the rationality of one's thoughts, will either generate in the body emotional well-being indicative of mental efficacy or chronic anxiety warning one to volitionally make changes in order to avoid impending self-destruction.
Only in lawful adherence to the constitutional principle of individual rights can such a plan justify its existence as a purposeful, rational means to an end. The same right that protects a person's choice to do whatever he wills to his own life - the legal basis for decriminalization - holds, as usual, a person absolutely responsible for any "loss of control" damaging or destroying any life other than his own.
A.YOUNG13 6-11-88
---------------------------------------
"Neither God nor the state is the source of our rights"
Man's rights are not gifts from any god, government, or religious group, but originate from the absolute necessity of each individual to own his life as the prerequisite and only means of ever attaining a freedom within which he can even attempt to reach his fullest, human potential.
Only by holding an individual's life as the source and greatest of all values can a person find an honest reason to want to take responsibility for his own well-being. In understanding the value of personal responsibility demanded by individual rights, along with the fact that one person's right does not parasitically or coercively extend into the domain of another's very same right, the guiding principle of an ethical way of life can be identified and put into practice to ensure the peaceful perpetuation of mankind.
Taking individual responsibility for one's own life requires the acknowledgement that not food, shelter, jobs, money, admiration, love, success, happiness or even a free land to live on are automatically owed any person -- but have to be earned. The fact that a person can no longer blame or hold others owing for his own careless failures erradicates, through beneficial disillusionment, the most negative, life-damaging emotions of self-pity, envy, jealousy and hatred. To the extent a man does not purposefully strive to maintain his own life, he reveals precisely just what kind of immoral profession he chooses for himself in his willingness to take that which another person earns but is loath to earn himself.
Capitalism, the living application and expression of the United States Constitution's principle of individual rights, is the only justifiable, ethical system on earth inside which men do mutually benefit each other, without sacrifice, by correctly choosing to responsibly lead their own lives and purposefully work to keep their freedom sec
their freedom secure.
Disparagers of capitalism, in their promotions of socialism, communism and statism, promise the grand-scale "distribution" of mankind's freedom as forever evidenced by their particular disregard of the right of the individual to choose to be more than an inconsequential, sacrificial unit inside a controlled, hoodwinked herd of groveling humans.
A.YOUNG13 11-7-87
---------------------------------------
"Disclaimers needed in teaching religious history"
Teaching religion's factuality in history classes in the public schools is proper only to the extent that such a study accompany the statement that still no proof exists of any god or the validity of biblical scripture.
To allay any fear of retribution for any doubting questions students may pose, and in order to maintain an ever-increasing curiosity in classroom discussions, they should be reassured that the promise of heavenly favors or the threat of damnation into hell's tortuous firepit remains only allegation used as the common artifice of religions to entice or intimidate people into accepting as true the topic under scrutiny.
That it is beneficial to exercise and liberate one's mind from misconception through investigation of any religion's history should be emphasized as the purposeful aim of the class along with the fact that in earlier times such investigations were impossible because religions, establishing themselves as the law of the land, imposed such malevolent control over people's minds and actions that any questioning of their authority was met with fanatical intolerance.
Inevitably, some student will ask why their exists separation of church and state, and what differences in the laws of each side necessitate a barrier between them. The teacher should honestly state what is common knowledge: that constitutional law protects individual freedom of mind and body under its supreme principle of individual rights while religious rule, never having promoted this principle, demands unquestioning self-sacrifice and deferential submission of the individual to the will of its proselytizers. The reason for separation of church and state should be stressed as the need to protect individual rights, which allow freedom of choice and dissent, from obliteration by religion's encroachment.
Any attempt to inculcate any religious code of morality in the public schools, under the guise of teaching ethics, is an illegal act violating not only church-state separation, but also the rights of captive students who, without choice, are pounced upon as convenient prey for possible conversion.
A.YOUNG13 8-1-87
---------------------------------------
"Churches themselves add to moral bankruptcy"
To investigate why moral bankruptcy exists in America, without mentioning or questioning the inculcating effect of every religion's daily-broadcasted allegation of being the only legitimate source of ethical instruction, implicitly condones exempting the churches from scrutiny which just might unfavorably expose them as that very same, deceptive entity of infernal fame from whom they profess to save our souls.
Fearful reluctance to critically assess religion's impact on the minds of m
they profess to save our souls.
Fearful reluctance to critically assess religion's impact on the minds of men stems not only from possible defamatory reprisals against one's character for faithlessly doubting the authority of the church, but also from remembered events in our country's not-so-distant past when fearful concern for one's own well-being was escalated by the fact that blasphemy of any kind could be punished "legally" by torture, banishments, property confiscations and a rope around the neck if one was "proven" by the "honest" to be guilty of cavorting with Old Horny from Hades.
With the advent of the Constitution's principle of individual rights, religion's power to enforce its rule was radically restricted for the first time, continuing to impose itself only to the extent that men failed to understandingly claim the mind liberating protection secured by a rational principle of freedom that recognized the inherent right of all individuals to exist for their own sake.
Man's greatest "sin" is his own lethargic refusal to insist on reasoning with his own mind, preferring instead the effortless means of gaining "knowledge" by accepting the luring, promising or threatening say-so of other men.
In the failure to realize that man's unique mode of survival is inextricably dependent upon the use of his mind's faculty of reasoning, which at every moment of his life requires a self-initiated, intentional exertion of his will to evoke, he will unhappily claim throughout his life that he is an unlucky, victimized pawn stuck in an incomprhensive world that fatefully deals him a dirty hand.
The only difference between the erratic thrashing about of a decapitated body and the haphazard stumbling through life of a man who has foresaken his power to reason is the latter's limited time left to salvage the wreckage of his mind.
A.YOUNG13 6-6-87
---------------------------------------
"To preserve freedom we must reject altruism"
The obstacle encountered by many people, in their attempts to argue communism's nefarious practice of government subordination of the individual to the collective "good," is their own unassessed alignment with its irrational philosophical base, knocking one off any consistent stand into a part-agreeing stance, which undermines the ability to refute its essential, operating principle.
Physical force, used in blatant negation of self-ownership, property rights, free association of men and private enterprise for profit, is "justified" through communism's incessant preachment of its guiding principle of altruism, the concept which insanely promotes self-sacrifice as its morality's standard of value, while damning rational concern for one's own self as a valueless evil.
Many Americans, failing to identify as altruistic many common slogans held in their minds, self-abasingly believe that concern for their own lives' maintenance is done at the expense of others("dog eat dog," "one man's gain is another man's loss") and that their right to be first beneficiaries of their own proper efforts, in the voluntary, steadfast pursuit of a livelihood, is somehow secondary and owing to another person's irresponsible lack of concerned motivation for his own life ("from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs").
The only ethical choice of action one can take in life must adhere to the principle of individual rights, which maintains justice and freedom of the individual to exist apart from others by forbidding the use of force to steal that which one person rightfully earns and owns, for the unjust purpose of undeservedly "rewarding" it to others who do not care to affirm, through productive effort, the worth of their own lives.
"rewarding" it to others who do not care to affirm, through productive effort, the worth of their own lives.
Peaceful coexistence of men and an elevated standard of living can be attained only by those who, ethically choosing not to parasitically use others as the means to their own ends, consciously reject altruism, while they are still free, by refusing to subserviently fuel its immolating pyre, whose flames consume the only source of potential goodness on earth -- the fire of an individual.
A.YOUNG13 4-10-87
---------------------------------------
"To escape racism, appreciate individual rights"
/// Many people expose themselves as racists everytime they utter any trite generalization derogitorily aimed at any group of people of any genetic lineage.
The slurring of entire groups, not only reveals a failure to realize that the fill of an individual's mind is not automatically inherited, but also evidences the dangerous irrationality of potentially destructive minds which, in their refusal to concede that every person should be judged on his or her own merits only, would nullify justice.
Included in this very same racist mentality are those who profess to fight against racism, but hold the living generation of one group responsible and owing (in demanding special rights, preferential treatment or monetary recompensation) to another group for the past injustices of never-met, not-responsible-for, long-dead ancestors.
Racists are superlative exponents of collectivism who unquestioningly adhere to their own groups say-so, which lends them a false self-estimation and security in "belonging". For all the rationalizations they believe make their own group superior, they will treat as inferior all others to the point of deadly disregard. While attempting to maintain the insane illusion of collective supremacy by calling for a solidarity to "stick to one's own kind," a swell of virulent intimidating hatred is aimed at those who do not fit into their "religiously-held" color scheme, unleashing along with it a malicious, self-righteous advocacy to violate and trample this country's constitutional principle of individual rights, such as every individual's right to live a life free from the coercion of others.
Individual rights, when identified as the only rational principle in existence from which can be derived a proper code of ethics worthy of guiding men's interrelationships, will provide the conceptual key allowing anyone to break out of the mindless parroting and self-imposed shackling of other men's prejudicial misconceptions.
This includes, necessarily, one's own originating group's racist claim on its members, alleging automatic affliliation through some kind of blood bonding, which expects a predetermined behavior in conformance with traditionally accepted, group beliefs.
A.YOUNG13 1-30-87
---------------------------------------
"Religious bias distorts panel's view of pornography"
An honest, government-commissioned evaluation of the effect of pornographic materials on the minds of men would also have to include an assessment of that commission's bias in its conclusions drawn from premises held inside its Judeo-Christian view of human sexuality.
The concept of Original Sin, which maligns and pits man's mind against his body, relegating human sexuality to an inferior status of loathsome, brutish necessity, has done more toward the destruction of mental health and the promotion of self-h
The concept of Original Sin, which maligns and pits man's mind against his body, relegating human sexuality to an inferior status of loathsome, brutish necessity, has done more toward the destruction of mental health and the promotion of self-hatred than any other single idea.
/// In spite of pornography's content, which can range from benign depictions of pleasurable sexual contact to an aberrant extreme of violently destructive acts of human degradation, it has always been a retort in step with the imposition of religion's promulgated, ascetic version of sexuality.
In mistaken repudiation of the inherent goodness of sex, a person will fervently berate and attempt to censure the acts of others in blind disregard of an individual's right to reject such a malevolent distortion of religion.
In the unavoidably transgressive, explosive releases of pent-up passion, sex is perverted into a sneaky and revoltingly dirty act to expediently assuage, caring not whether a "partner" is willing or shares the same mind. Self-satisfaction and closeness with another human being is thwarted in these cases because shame and guilt, frustrating the enjoyment of the sexual act, cancel it as a life-affirming celebration adding to healthy self-esteem. To the detriment, it is performed as an unhealthy act of defilement which reinforces the sad misapprehension that man's being is innately evil and not worthy of love.
It would be noteworthy to study for a comparison the operative religious premises in the deranged minds of criminals who (sexually) coerce others, alongside those Bible-based premises operative in the minds of an apparently religious, government-sponsored commission, whose conclusions, trivializing the necessity of maintaining justice through the exaction of individual responsibility for one's own actions, provide a justification for its proposal of pernicious legislation aimed at the obliteration of this country's principles of individual rights.
A.YOUNG13 9-19-86
---------------------------------------
"Judges should defend the Constitution, not the Bible"
The US Supreme Court ruling, concluding that homosexuals have no right to choose and practice their own sexuality, does not conform to constitutional law, but instead pays homage to coercive Biblical doctrine in total defiance of the First Amendment. This action clearly indicates that certain judges have forsaken their oaths to uphold the Constitution and prefer to operate, in servile deference, under a religious allegiance that does not proclaim, promote or protect individual rights.
As long as this malevolent, irresponsible ruling stands, individual freedom is jeopardized, facing total obliteration under an illegal establishment of religion which seemingly has gained the use of a powerful legislative instrument to militate anything inside its whim -- all with the approval of a judicial heirarchy that has disgracefully proven itself unworthy to be protectors of the Constitution.
The Constitution intentionally does not promote the morality of any belief system, but protects individuals by prohibiting all legislative attempts to enforce any particular belief, ensuring the right of every individual to follow the dictates of his or her own mind. Lawful intervention is proper only when one person unjustly and mistakenly thinks that his own right extends to the coercive negation of the right of another.
All religious-based rulings, including those that have previously been legislated into law, should be stricken from the books by the proper use of legislation to uphold and affirm the sanctity of the constitutional principle of individual rights.
Ju
Judges who are torn in their allegiance between the Constitution and the Bible obviously understand neither, and will consistently taint their "interpretation" of the former, which protects individual freedom, with that of the latter, which has always demanded submission of the individual to its story line, even if it requires bloodshed.
A.YOUNG13 7-11-86
---------------------------------------
"Keep them separate!"
Nowhere can there be found, in any religious or statist philosophy, a guiding principle of freedom ethically superior to that of individual rights. Any other principle, operating in its stead, only promotes the detrimental contrary - the enslavement of man through coercion of body and mind.
Freedom is meaningless when the only acceptable "choice" is either submissive conformance to an ideology or disfranchisement and ostracism. The threat of incarceration or death is the prevalent reward of those who dare contest the actions of dictatorial governments instituting and enforcing religious or statist doctrines.
In our country, religion has no right to impose its beliefs on any person who does not choose to follow them. Religion's assertion, that its philosophy is the basis of our Constitution, does not hold true by virtue of the fact that the Constitution's First Amendment has never allowed the incorporation of incompatible religious beliefs into its structure.
In spite of the fact that several religious observances have been obsequiously promoted by our government, because of the intense pressure of certain groups to make Christianity the law of the land, never has a religious code of morality managed to overwrite the principle on which our Constitution stands.
This most excellent principle, which guarantees freedom from coercion and freedom of choice, must be vigilantly guarded, because it leaves itself open to attack, by those who, while under the benefit of its protection, unscrupulously maneuver to destroy it through unlawful, worthless legislation. The only proper subject of legislation is the protection of individual rights.
Most of the world's internally devastated countries, whose religious belief systems constitute the guiding principles of their governments, remain, as in the past, virtual theocracies in perpetual warfare. All tyrannical governments, including the paternalistic, state-as-god militancy of the Soviet Union, whose constitutions, guided by any imaginable principle other than that of individual rights, abet divisiveness, hatred, subjugation, and the capricious, terroristic bludgeoning of innocent lives.
A.YOUNG13 6-12-86
---------------------------------------
"Tyranny should not be tolerated in any country"
THE SLUR of "imperialist takeover," aimed at the United States is nothing more than a condonation of tyranny -- an assertion of the non-existent right of some men to brutally enslave others.
Many people acquiesce to the idea that any government that can establish itself anywhere in the world, proclaiming itself a legitimate ruler, should be recognized as the supreme authority over all people inside its territory and respected as such with no interference from anyone or any country. In this disgraceful acquiescence, any dictatorship is condoned as proper and given full license to do anything it wants to its "constituents" for no other reason than that it has established itself in power.
full license to do anything it wants to its "constituents" for no other reason than that it has established itself in power.
The amorality of such a view resides in the total absence of questioning the principles on which any person or group stands over other people. The biggest mistake is believing that any government has the right to enslave anyone. A government that coercively controls, such that "its" people can only act and exist by its permission, is outlaw and open to retaliation from any people that recognize and protect individual rights as the only legitimate and beneficial principle on which a political body can justify its existence. Only individuals can hold rights and governments should exist only to uphold them.
Collective, public, national and societal "rights" are all insidiously deceptive in that no group entity has any rights over the individual rights of its members. To the extent that group entities wield "special rights" to control individuals, they are destructive and should be overthrown.
As long as the masses of all countries remain ignorant of and do not understand individual rights, they will be duped by their rulers into believing that personal sacrifice, to any governmental whim, is the necessary and only means of attaining prosperity, well-being and peace on Earth. Unfortunately, poverty, suffering, hatred, censorship and violent death remain the chronic current events of their lives.
The toughest, but most worthwhile endeavor will be the teaching of the principle of individual rights throughout the world, with the consequential reward of making it impossible for tyrannies to exist on
Earth.
A.YOUNG13 4-5-86
---------------------------------------
"Freedom-of-religion rights are being trampled"
/// The First Amendment is of paramount importance, its first clause intentionally addressing religion: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It was created expressly to build a "wall" of separation between church rule and constitutional law which neither could breach.
The creation of this wall was primarily concerned with keeping religious doctrine from encroaching upon the Constitution's supreme principle of individual rights, which guarantees each individual the freedom to control his or her own life's destiny - the very reason the Constitution was written. The second half of the first clause was necessarily attached to reassure all citizens that their freedom to believe as they wished was not in question, but that the wall would allow no belief to legislate itself into law.
In spite of the guarantees of the Constitution, religious dictates command the law and impose censorship of verbal, written and physical expression. Since it was necessary to remind everyone of the Constitution's stand for individual freedom, the remainder of the amendment reaffirmed: "... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Without the "wall," judges today would be sentencing "infidels" to purgatories in strict accordance to whatever version of the Bible was zealously thrown at them.
As long as we protect the principle of individual rights, no group or mob will ever succeed in controlling us. Religious groups, even our government under its very own law, have no other rights that can supersed
group or mob will ever succeed in controlling us. Religious groups, even our government under its very own law, have no other rights that can supersede individual rights. What an individual cannot do, a group cannot do, eventhough it may claim that its "mighty" numbers make it "right" and give it clout. Individual rights justly subordinate all coercive group activities to moral law, thus protecting the smallest minority on earth, the individual, from being whimsically sacrificed to the majority.
A.YOUNG13 9-17-85
---------------------------------------
"Toward Theocracy?"
Planned Parenthood and all advocates of freedom of choice in abortion must remember that religion's concern for the fetus is no greater than the concern for the lives of the women who would be enslaved under its proposed anti-constitutional, dictatorial legislation that would abrogate much more than just a woman's right to choose to procreate or not.
It is a waste of time for abortion advocates to try to appeal to anti-abortionists through emotional recounts of very real hardships created by unwanted or undecided pregnancies. People who adhere to religious doctrine, which denies individual choice, demanding collective submission to irrational biblical ideas, can hold no compassion or respect for those women who dare make up their own minds to choose to abort.
While dangerously encroaching on women's rights, defiling heralded constitutional principles that safeguard the right to live and lead our own lives, religionists dare not state that they are not for freedom and liberty. They unctuously mouth those two words in holy adoration and then nullify the very concepts by qualifying them with the typical restrainers: "under God's guidance,""under Christ's loving law."
The preachers' incessantly spouted claim of acting in a most morally righteous fashion is necessary in order to divert attention from the fact that their desired anti-abortion legislation is absolutely aimed at acheiving a major constitutional disintegration which, from that point on, would easily dislodge the remaining keystones of individual rights, protected behind the "Wall of Separation of Church and State," and undermine the Constitution of the United States by uniting civil law with church rule. Religion will then exert its control over the existing police force to force its dogma on every citizen of this country - establishing the atrocity of a militant theocracy, which will squelch the individuality of all unyielding minds, banning all choice and expression, except for that which parrots, in robot-like ritual, the mentally mortifying ideals of the parochial past and present.
Fortunately, religion's desire to rule us is still justly outlawed by law.
A.YOUNG13 6-14-85
---------------------------------------
"The Abortion Decision"
The most immoral act, inside the topic of abortion, is governmental and religious interference through legislation, illegally negating a woman's constitutional right to own her life, including all her body processes.
A woman's capacity for bearing children does not mean that it is her obligated, sole purpose in life, nor should she ever become pregnant to immaturely prove the maturity of her reproductive system.
A female who unintentionally gets pregnant and cannot decide whether to see it through because of peer, parental or religious pressure is a coward to form her own convictions. Mentally immobile from confusion, y immobile
A female who unintentionally gets pregnant and cannot decide whether to see it through because of peer, parental or religious pressure is a coward to form her own convictions. Mentally immobile from confusion, she procrastinates, equating herself with the
non-conceptual animals who, even under hopeless conditions, breed and drop their litter anywhere, because the idea to choose differently never enters their minds.
To act with integrity, the decision must be based on her own judgment with no regard to anyone else's desires or pleas.
Carrying a child through birth is respectable only when the event is anticipated with love, which includes being able to provide for it with one's own earnings. To do the contrary is the most dishonest state in which she can allow herself to exist. To the extent she delays her decision, she deceives herself as well as the new life within her.
Isn't it noteworthy that those parents who, day after day, make the headlines for trashing, starving, beating and murdering their children, heeded the cries of the anti-abortionists in the name of Sacred Life?
A.YOUNG13 11-30-84
---------------------------------------
"Bishops should use wealth of the Catholic Church"
The Catholic bishops can begin to eradicate poverty by admitting to the world that their church is probably the richest entity on earth and makes much of its wealth by just existing inside the very U.S. politico-economic system it decries: capitalism. Why does the church want to harness the wealth created by American workers when it has so much of its own?
The bishops' desire to socialize our free enterprise system reveals exactly their collectivist philosophy which demands subordination and treats individuals as sacrificial animals whose earnings are seized and redistributed to dictatorship favorites. The destruction of all individual rights and the prosperity produced by its free expression is their only goal.
I sincerely doubt the professed, compassionate concern of the church for the poor on grounds that throughout the centuries it has touted earthly degradation, poverty, hatred of body and maiming of the flesh as noble prerequisites of spiritual attainment. The church still remains responsible for the perpetuation of mental and physical impoverishment.
These bishops negate every productive American who holds his or her own life as a worthy value whose maintenance and betterment is a moral imperative of individual responsibility and affirmation.
Why does the church disdain businessmen who create work floors where people can earn a living through production of some useful commodity? Why is profit considered evil when it generates business growth and, consequently, more jobs?
If the bishops want to genuinely accomplish what they propose, let's see them implement a plan to collect, melt down, and distribute to the poor, every piece of gold inside the Vatican and its world churches -- instead of letting it remain useless, gaudy ornamentation to gawk at and idolize like the biblical Golden Calf!
A.YOUNG13 11-27-84
---------------------------------------
"Hail to Capitalism"
It is crucially important to iden
"Hail to Capitalism"
It is crucially important to identify the opposing philosophical principles of capitalism and socialism in order to discover exactly what each offers to do with our individual lives.
Capitalism upholds the right of every individual to choose to work, earn a living, trade value for value and, very importantly, to keep as private property whatever a person's efforts return, in money or material goods. A person may choose to do nothing in this system, but has no claim on anyone else's life to support his own parasitically.
Capitalism is the only ethical political system on earth that recognizes the sanctity of individual rights and freedom of expression as its principle standards, which are the prerequisites of any possible "pursuit of happiness."
The incomparable standard of living in America is only a consequence of every individual's superabundance of unimpeded productivity stemming from each individual's primary concern to go out and maintain to the best of ability his or her own life.
No other country can match what we have achieved, but could if their governments recognized individual rights and stopped stealing the earnings and achievements of their citizens. How can there be any incentive to produce when private property is forbidden by collective governments that tell their citizens they have no right to keep the fruit of their labor? This is righteously embraced as "necessary Sacrifice" for the "common good of all." As usual, the slave in his collective is forced to work unchosen fields and, when he drags his burnt-out carcass home at night, hopes his "benevolent" master will show him a just return of redistribution and feed him something of what he just picked but in no way owns.
Will socialists convince us to "willingly" hand over our personal belongings to selectively redistribute them among those who never earned them in the first place?
Without property rights there are no individual rights and, at that point, you belong blood, muscle and mind to a government that has effectively cut off your every avenue to dissent to its commands concerning your lifes future existence.
A.YOUNG13 10-1-84
---------------------------------------
"Religion and Inquiry"
The problem in allowing religion to be "taught" in the public schools lies in the amount of censorship that will exist in the classroom during discussion of that topic's pros and cons, up to the point of not even being able to conclude and state out loud to the students that it may have no rational basis in reality.
Presenting any religious philosophy under the cowing silencer of a commanded respect would somberly dampen any legitimate questioning, and whatever was questioned would probably bring angry reprisal from those favoring religious indoctrination. Religion's success at commanding this respect depends on the degree of power it wields to propel itself through the legislative process - to force itself into the classroom by using political sanction to ensure its presentation. A certain amount of respect is only due those who present their ideas (right or wrong) and do not demand or coerce acceptance from those in earshot or a captive audience.
Even though the state itself puts a limiting bridle on honest, worthwhile teaching in its schools, at least it has never militantly snapped "You accept this - you had better accept this - or else"!
Always vote "no" on school prayer. It is an assembly of a coerced nature instituted by the say-so of a manipulated government in the hands of persons who, defying all contitutionality, have forgotten that they have no right over anyone else to push their ideas on the public at large. Any religious group that has to use government san
contitutionality, have forgotten that they have no right over anyone else to push their ideas on the public at large. Any religious group that has to use government sanction to promote it will not ever achieve any constructive, benevolent end, but the disgraceful opposite every time.
Even though religious proponents of this move maintain that such assemblies would be apart from class time, attended by those who voluntarily consent, would they allow formation of assemblies that criticize their entire belief system? They would not want the schools system to allow it, because at that point government sanction would not aid their campaign as planned, diminishing their ability to indoctrinate and recrute their best source of potential converts - young, developing minds still learning to apply reason in their lives.
A.YOUNG13 5-28-84
---------------------------------------
"Religion's tax raids"
In spite of the First Amendment's guarantee of separation of state and church, the blatant fact remains that religion has illegally encroached into our governmental system, premeditatedly undermining and manipulating legislative processes with the intention of Vaticanizing an all-people-serving democracy into an insidious theocracy which will crush individual rights and force us into a collectivism of psychological and economic obedience.
Religious infestment inside our political body differs in no way from a foreign dictatorial government stepping in to gain control by stealthily implementing its own laws while snubbing and obliterating established constitutional law.
The IRS, a governmental agency, must conform to all constitutional law and protect us from having to support religion either psychologically or monetarily with federally funded subsidies which originate from our earned and taxed dollars.
Hypocritically, the IRS allows organized religion to meld into the economy with unfair privileges to operate businesses for profit, accumulating billions of untaxed dollars. Religious profits endlessly multiply and are reinvested into stock and bonds in gas and electric companies, hotels, steel, oil, aircraft, television, radio, insurance, trucking, real estate - even government bonds - and no tax is paid on received dividends.
Fervently opposed to paying any income, property or other taxes into the federal fund kitty to help maintain our country's development, religion pleads poverty and demands these very funds to support its own organizations, schools, hospitals and nursing homes.
While religion continues to remove from circulation and federal funds more and more dollars, which from there on never see taxation, taxpayers are forced to pay ever-increasing taxes to repair the deficit; therefore, we are illegally forced to support the body of religion.
A.YOUNG13 4-28-81
---------------------------------------
"Let's not stand idle"
It revolts me to watch a group of religious fanatics launch a so-called "moral war" against innocent human beings and dare attempt to legislate into law personal beliefs which, if passed and enforced by each state's policing system, would result in establishing a militant, theocratic dictatorship designed to squelch all freedom of verbal and physical expression to the extreme of death to the individual.
Shall we once more hail Hitler tactics, standing idle while its adoring adherents solve differences between people by taking away their constitutional rights or killing
death to the individual.
Shall we once more hail Hitler tactics, standing idle while its adoring adherents solve differences between people by taking away their constitutional rights or killing them? Let's not!
How deplorable it is to see emotionally inflated, charismatic leaders who, through ignorance, fail to axalt the necessity that each woman and man must remain free to pursue a self-chosen lifestyle free from interference and domination of other individuals or groups proclaiming as legitimate law their religious beliefs.
The First Amendment is our constitutional protector which separates religious rule from tainting our civil laws which in themselves force no beliefs on men, but serve only to protect each man from the violence of other men. This amendment guarantees us the right to keep religion out of our lives, from telling us what to think, what to read and what we can and cannot do sexually with our bodies.
Thomas Jefferson, a founding father and framer of our Constitution, stated: "No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever..."
(.txt)