I don’t think I have ever really referred to myself as an atheist. Basically, I
just don’t like being labeled. I think our society places way too much emphasis
on ranking and labeling people. I think that labels are too shallow and don’t
really reflect who we are. We are all individuals and should be respected as
such. I prefer to be known merely by my given name of Julian Hatch. All I can
really take responsibility for are my own beliefs and actions. I do not wish to
take credit for the efforts of others nor be judged by their actions. I don’t
think others should be judged for my actions and beliefs. We can associate with
one another but ultimately we are all individuals. Everyone who is a member of
this organization is not necessarily an atheist. They may merely be interested
in issues concerning church and state. I have been accused of conducting a
decades long campaign of hate and terror by a former police officer and state
park superintendent who lives in Boulder, Utah. So, I hope no one here today
will be implicated as terrorist accomplices or sympathizers just because you
have come to this meeting to hear me speak.
Given what I have experienced over the past several years just about any
accusation might be made and my speaking to you may well be construed as an act
of terrorism. I know that anything I say today can and probably will be used
against me in court so I am speaking from a prepared text in an effort to
protect myself from further baseless accusations. Put your self in my shoes, no
one wants to be accused of being a terrorist.
Osama Bin Laden
is a terrorist. Am
I being equated to him? It sounds like I am a violent criminal. People are
afraid to be around a terrorist. This is the kind of life I now must live for
daring to not believe in religion and reside in the state of Utah. That is why I
am being accused of terrorism and why I must now tell my story.
Everyday I am
forced to consider exactly where I go, who I might run into, who I speak with,
and I always try to insure that there is some courageous person present who can
act as a witness. If you live in Utah and are not Mormon then you are already
presumed guilty. I am now forced to prove that I didn’t do anything wrong. This
sounds like life in a totalitarian state or under the Taliban but no, this is
Utah and it is being operated like some kind of theocracy. I don’t know if this
would happen to me in other places but I know if I don’t speak out now about
this persecution I will continue to find myself railroaded. Our government is
sliding down a slippery slope of intolerance against those who don’t agree with
the religious majority. What is happening to me because I don’t subscribe to
religion could happen to you.
The dictionary states that an “atheist” is someone without a belief in god and a
“theist” is someone who does believe in god and religion. Atheists are basically
just non-theists. But why should merely not believing in something require or
even deserve identification? What does my non-belief have to do with someone
else’s beliefs? Just because I don’t believe in something it does not mean they
can’t believe it. I strongly believe that theists have a right to believe in
supernatural beings that rule the universe even if they can’t reasonably justify
such a belief. But why is there a need to label the people who don’t believe as
they do? There are lots of things I don’t believe in, such as space aliens,
Santa Claus, and flying elephants but there are no labels for not believing in
those things. I don’t believe that the sun revolves around the earth or that the
earth is flat. They used to call people who believed those things “heretics” and
they were tortured and killed for their disbelief but now that science has
proved them correct, it is considered normal. I see the importance of
acknowledging someone as a doctor or other professional but I don’t think there
is a profession or college degree for atheism. There are many things I don’t
believe in besides religion as well as many other things I do believe in. I
resent religious believers as someone who believes in nothing. How can the
beliefs of a person be summed up with a label merely noting disbelief in gods?
And what does not believing in something that doesn’t actually exist really
imply anyway?
I think most people are usually very skeptical about unfounded claims but when
it comes to religion they seem to be afraid to apply the same sensibility. They
say it takes a leap of faith to believe in religion and that’s the truth! Faith
is defined as unquestioning belief without verification or evidence. Faith is a
dangerous way to operate your life. Imagine if everyone driving cars used faith
to know how to drive them. Actually, that might explain a lot about some of the
drivers in Utah. Some people say that belief in god is supported by rationality
but there can be no evidence for gods or the supernatural. Religious belief can
only be based on faith. It is impossible to prove the existence of the
supernatural because only nature can be shown to exist. Nature, by definition is
“everything in time and space that exists in the universe.” Supernatural gods do
not exist in any way that can be perceived. If you don’t believe me, look up the
meaning of words like religion, god, spirituality, rationality, nature, and
supernatural in the dictionary. Nature and the supernatural are mutually
exclusive. Gods can only be supernatural otherwise they would not be gods. And
natural things can’t be gods because they are not supernatural. It is impossible
to prove the existence of something that doesn’t exist. You can’t prove a
negative. It is even harder to disprove the existence of something that doesn’t
exist. By labeling someone an atheist, believers attempt to shift the burden
onto them to prove that god doesn’t exist. Shouldn’t people who believe in gods
be the ones who need to justify such a belief? There is not one shred of
rational evidence for the existence of supernatural gods who rule the universe.
There can never be any evidence or proof of their existence. Believers have only
the unquestioning belief of faith. Just because you can imagine something
doesn’t make it real. Someone can think up gods or pink elephants ad infinitum
but it doesn’t mean any of them actually exist.
|
Amazon.com |
|
Ken's Guide to the Bible
by Ken Smith
With precision and pig-iron wit,
this compact volume lays bare all the sex, gore, and lunacy that the Bible has
to offer.
|
I think a better term for atheists might be “realists.” Atheists believe in
reality and rely on factual knowledge to determine what exists. Atheists do not
know everything and they could be wrong but at least they have evidence for
their beliefs. I believe in nature because it exists and I can prove it. No one
disbelieves in the existence of nature so why can’t we all find common ground in
that belief. If someone wants to believe more, then that is fine but the basis
of our society and our daily lives ought to be in nature. Life could be a whole
lot simpler and less controversial without people arguing over their conjectures
about supernatural phenomenon. A glass of water spills and you clean it up.
There is no need to speculate whether god meant for it to happen or wonder what
the supernatural implications of the spill might be. There is no evidence for
the existence of the supernatural so I don’t believe in it. I won’t believe in
gods until I see them or have some kind of rational way of knowing she exists.
But then god would have to be natural and the basic meaning would be lost. No
one can prove the existence of the supernatural because anything that does exist
must be natural. How can someone disprove the existence of what does not exist?
PLAYING
THE TERRORISM CARD
I have a college degree in Human Ecology so I can be labeled as a Human
Ecologist but being labeled merely because I don’t believe in religion just
doesn’t seem right. If something doesn’t exist there is no reason for a person
to believe it does. Believing in something that is unknowable and unverifiable
is not normal behavior. The term of atheist appears to be more like being
branded as a traitor or marked like an adulterer in the novel “The Scarlet
Letter.” But atheists have done nothing except not believe in god so evidently
the brand is meant to identify and isolate them from other people. Theists and
religionists seem to need to identify unbelievers as “not one of us” in an
effort to force them to conform to their belief in gods. If religionists were
confident in their beliefs you would think they would feel secure enough to
leave non-believers alone. But it seems like they just can’t be happy until
everyone else believes as they do. I’d rather be labeled a realist than merely
an atheist. But after being publicly branded as a terrorist in a civil lawsuit,
the label of atheist seems much more preferable. Since my disbelief in religion
is the real reason I‘m being accused of terrorism the world might as well know
me as an atheist. But apparently, my accuser considers disbelief in god a
terrorist act. Evidently, I strike fear and terror into him because I refuse to
believe in his religion. If he wants to stigmatize and hurt me socially here in
“Utah, the Mormon State” and to a jury comprised mostly of Mormons, he need only
brand me an atheist not a terrorist to do so.
The civil lawsuit filed against me for Abuse of Process and Malicious
Prosecution states:
"Since moving to the town of Boulder, Julian Hatch has engaged in a campaign of
hate and terror towards the residents of Boulder, most specifically toward Larry
and Judy Davis. As part of Mr. Hatch’s campaign, he has used the legal system in
an attempt to intimidate those with whom he deals. These actions are all brought
without any hope of success. Their filing is a perversion of the process in
order to accomplish an improper purpose; that is, to intimidate the residents of
the town as well as the town council to comply with Mr. Hatch’s narrow and
peculiar political and philosophical positions. The federal lawsuit as well as
this action were filed with an ulterior motive and purpose and constitute abuse
of process. Mr. Hatch has now brought this action and has done so without
probable cause and for harassment and annoyance. The filing of this action and
the federal lawsuit by Mr. Hatch is done maliciously and constitutes malicious
prosecution.”
Boulder, Utah resident Larry Davis claims I terrorized and intimidated local residents by moving to the town in 1981 and thirteen years later, opening a
small beer store and campground named Freedom From Religion.
|
 |
|
10 Reasons Why Beer is
Better than Jesus |
I moved to the town
only because of its proximity to the spectacular red rock canyons of south
central Utah. I have never asked much of locals and most people have treated me
fine. I wouldn’t mind at all if they left me completely alone to my enjoyment of
nature. And most people do leave me alone; in fact, most people have never seen
me or know anything about my existence. I did not move there because of the
people who already lived there or who have come with the recent development in
the area that was so strongly desired by community leaders. But there are always
some people who gravitate toward power and greed, trying to climb up to top of
the hierarchal ladder. And to stay on top they need to control the lives of
other people. They especially feel a need to oppress people that resist their
machinations. Such a person is usually labeled as a bully. They can be found
anywhere, not just within Mormonism or Utah. They claim to represent the
majority and feel it’s their paternalistic and supposed patriotic duty to
protect society from those that are different or dare to question authority.
These people don’t like change and want to maintain the status quo.
In Utah, with the Mormon prohibition on use of alcohol, it seemed like Freedom
From Religion was a good name for an alternative beer store. I am not trying to
intimidate or terrorize the residents of “Mormon country” by the name. The name
wasn’t freedom from Mormons. Nor even freedom from Christians. I knew Mormons
would probably not come to my business no matter what name I gave it. After
being persecuted and shunned for many years for my refusal to attend the local
Mormon Church “Ward” and with my concerns for the environment, I had to seek
elsewhere for people who were different. I tried to provide visitors with
freedom to choose an alternative facility where they could hear another point of
view and learn more about the many social and environmental issues in Utah and
the southwest. In short, I tried to provide some freedom and diversity.
When I saw a real possibility of economic opportunity I asked the town for
licenses for a microbrewery and restaurant but they were not provided because
alcohol had been outlawed except for two existing gas stations. The Mayor and
Town clerk also didn’t like the name and concept for the restaurant. There were
already three traditional style restaurants within a couple of hundred yards and
downwind of my property so I decided to open a vegetarian restaurant with the
name “Meat is Murder.” I have been a vegetarian for many years and there are
lots of new innovative meatless products and recipes to offer to the ten percent
or more of the public who visit the area and desire to dine vegetarian. I wanted
a name that would clearly denote that the restaurant was vegetarian. I
definitely did not want people coming in and complaining that I didn’t serve
meat. The state allowed me to file my license under the name Meat is Murder but
Larry Davis apparently thinks it was an act of hate and terror against himself
and cattle ranchers. I am evidently intimidating some people to not eat meat
produced by local ranchers. But like many other environmentally minded people, I
oppose livestock ranching on the scenic public lands in the area so I would not
use their meat products anyway. Apparently, I’m being coerced to conform to the
local custom and cultural beliefs of Mormonism and cattle ranching.
RAILROADED IN “MORMON COUNTRY”
In Utah, the majority of residents are Mormons. If you are not a member of “the
one and only true church” then you are automatically a minority and as
such, you
are open to attacks and persecution. Most of the elected representatives,
courts, jurors, and police that make and enforce the laws in Utah, are Mormons
so if you are not one of them you are already on shaky ground. I believe there
is a Mormon cultural persecution complex. It’s sort of like reverse
discrimination where those who are repressed are accused of persecuting their
oppressors if they dare openly complain. Mormons have set themselves above
others as the chosen people and if anyone honestly rejects those beliefs they
say they are just anti-Mormon. Because I don’t believe in his religion, Davis
claims I hate him. He may feel he is right because millions of Mormons believe
as he does. But we know from history that even if millions of people believe
something, it still does not make it true. People who choose to become or remain
Mormons make a conscious intellectual choice and can be held accountable for
their claims. Questioning and rejecting their religion is fair because it is
what they chose to be. But when Davis brands me a terrorist it is unfair,
unfounded, and irresponsible. I do not choose or claim to be a terrorist. I have
never committed any acts of terror. I have never been arrested in my entire
life. I have done nothing criminal to the residents of Utah. I am not a
terrorist!
In his lawsuit, Davis claims I am trying to force my “narrow and peculiar
political and philosophical positions” on him and others by filing lawsuits. He
claims that he and other residents were intimidated and terrorized when I filed
lawsuits involving my civil rights and illegal zoning regulations. And they
probably are very unhappy since the claims I have made have all been decided in
my favor. Davis also claims when I threaten lawsuits, he and other government
officials are intimidated from continuing illegal governmental practices. This
is stressful for him and he claims it causes him headaches, stomachaches, loss
of sleep, and appetite. He accuses me of hate while he hatefully brands me a
terrorist.
Like many Americans, I thought I had a right to file a lawsuit when that is the
only way to resolve the problem. I had tried for years to resolve my
difficulties and was left with no other recourse. How should people resolve
their conflicts if not in the courts? Larry Davis has repeatedly challenged me
to engage in what his attorney refers to as “mutual physical combat” with him
but I don’t think that is going to solve anything. He might beat me up but he
can’t make me believe in his gods or religion. The problem is that the Utah
legal system doesn’t seem to want non-Mormons to file cases in their courts.
They appear to want people to settle issues on their own and that works out
quite well politically when the issues involve religion because the religiously
empowered majority will always have the advantage. On the other hand, if certain
Mormons want to sue you they appear ready and willing. But they normally use the
police for that. Since I have done nothing criminal, they now say I have abused
the legal system by filing suits although I have won them all.
I have only filed a couple of lawsuits in my entire life and all of them have
involved Boulder Town where I have lived for the past twenty years. I was right
to have filed them and proved it in the courts. But the Mormon judges involved
in these cases did everything they could to help the Town Council defendants.
The only reason I have had any success in the courts is that I have been
absolutely right and the town has been blatantly wrong. I won a Federal Civil
rights verdict against the town in 1999 but not before the judge granted the
protection of “qualified immunity” to all of the Town Council officials who had
violated my rights. By the time the case got to the jury the only defendant left
was the town itself so the jury was not able to even consider punitive damages.
Since the jury decided in my favor it must be assumed that given the opportunity
they would have assessed punitive damages against the Mayor and Town Clerk for
improperly denying my business licenses. This would have sent a much stronger
message and ended continuing violations of my rights but the judge protected
them so they just continued to act illegally.
A Salt Lake Tribune editorial on April 19, 1999 entitled “Justice in Boulder”
about the jury verdict stated “This trial sends a simple, but too easily
forgotten message to all cities and towns that it is wrong to harass or
otherwise interfere with an individual because he or she is perceived as not
sharing the vision, values, or any other attribute a community’s majority uses
to identify itself. Even if the vast majority of residents share a common faith
or values, this is no reason to use that majority status to lord it over the
minority, or individuals, who do not.” Very well said! I really appreciated that
editorial but the message of the verdict was evidently never heard or heeded. It
didn’t cost the people who actually violated my rights any money. So the message
lost much of its effect. Town clerk Judith Davis says the jury made the wrong
decision. They did nothing wrong.
My allegation of assault against Larry Davis, the husband of the town clerk, was
initially filed in 1996 in the Federal Civil rights lawsuit. I thought the town
council was working with Mr. Davis to violate my rights. I think they allowed
him to assault me during a town meeting and they did nothing to try and stop
him. The Boulder Town Clerk and Council then purposely failed to produce minutes
of the public meeting precisely to cover up the fact that I was assaulted. They
also lied to the police investigator, another Mormon, when he performed a
cursory investigation. The police investigation did not even include talking
with Larry Davis or even interview this accused assailant. Does that seem like a
real investigation to you? I properly filed the case in the jurisdiction of the
Federal Court along with the other violations that took place during the past
two years. The assault occurred in a town meeting and was part of the town’s
efforts to violate my civil rights. Larry Davis had to be named in order to
prove there had even been an assault. But the assault claim was dismissed for
“lack of jurisdiction” after Mr. Davis and his attorney convinced the judge that
the alleged assault did not occur in a town meeting so it did not involve the
town council violations of my civil rights. They submitted the official town
council minutes that did not include the hour-long discussion of the town
building inspection program that night, which is when I claimed I had been
assaulted in my police statement. If there was no discussion about the illegal
building program in the minutes then there could be no linkage to the Town. They
claimed that I lied about being assaulted at a town meeting. After it was
dismissed from Federal court I had to re-file in state court within one year. If
I didn’t they would have sued me for filing a malicious Federal Court claim. I
now needed to prove there had been assault more than ever.
The assault claim should have been heard in the 1999 Federal court trial but it
was kept out once Judge Thomas Greene believed Davis, the town minutes, and his
attorney. I went on to prove the other civil rights violations against the town
and the assault claim would have been over years ago except for the mistaken
dismissal. Even then, it should have been heard in state court many years before
now except that when I filed the assault in state court, Davis and his attorney
James Bradshaw, cooked up the idea to accuse me of a “campaign of hate and
terror” so they could claim the assault allegations were false and maliciously
filed and should be dismissed again. And if Davis was shown to have assaulted me
then he was justifiably provoked by my terrorism against the local residents.
At this point it was now up to the Utah Sixth District Court Judge, David L.
Mower, to see through this charade and dismiss the malicious prosecutorial
claims being made by Davis, at least until a jury found he was not guilty of
assault. Termination in his favor is required prior to being able to file such
charges. If not, Davis and his attorney would basically be guilty of filing
their own counterclaims maliciously if he were later to be found guilty of
assault. His claims are premature. If Davis is found guilty of assault then I
certainly didn’t file the charge maliciously. That fact alone could help a
Mormon jury that is sympathetic to Davis, not want to find him guilty. If
religious jury members don’t like my differing beliefs then he might be
acquitted anyway. That is why they are claiming I have terrorized the local
residents with my so-called “narrow and peculiar philosophical and political
positions.” There really is a method to their madness. But surely the judge
would do the right thing and routinely dismiss the counterclaims. He could do so
without prejudice so they could be filed later if Davis was found not guilty of
assault. But unfortunately that’s not how the legal system works in southern
Utah.
Davis and his attorney provided a Utah Supreme Court appeal case from 1976
called Baird vs. Intermountain where the Court affirmed a lower ruling that the
school district had not maliciously prosecuted Baird. The court decision stated:
“We do not disagree with the proposition that under certain circumstances a
cause of action may exist for the wrongful bringing of civil proceedings. But
only when the civil suit is shown to have been brought without probable cause,
for the purpose of harassment or annoyance; and it is usually said to require
malice. It seems quite obvious that except in the most unusual circumstances, a
prerequisite to such a showing is that the prior suit be terminated in favor of
the defendant therein…it is our opinion that the trial court correctly ruled
that her asserted claim in this action does not meet the requirements of a cause
of action for wrongful civil proceedings as set out above.”
Davis and Bradshaw had found a mere reference to the possibility of a loophole
and they took full advantage of it. They said my assault claim was an unusual
exception to prior termination so their malicious prosecution claims could be
filed and heard in the same trial as the assault claim. My assault claim was
deemed unusual merely because of their allegations of hate and terror made by
Davis. And they relied merely on an obscure reference from a Utah case that
ultimately ruled against using the same strategy. Brilliant strategy or just
another scam, my case will be the first and only such “unusual” case in the
history of Utah. If there had ever been such a case before you can be sure they
would have cited it. And Judge Mower took the big leap of faith along with Davis
and Bradshaw when he refused to dismiss the premature counterclaims. Since the
Judge is a devout Mormon, I don’t think he agreed with my political and
philosophical positions anymore than Davis. I have had to spend more than 20,000
dollars defending myself from the terrorist accusations made by Larry Davis and
in trying to get the malicious claims dismissed. We have taken Depositions,
filed motions for dismissal, and Summary Judgment in efforts to prove that Davis
has no probable cause to accuse me of terrorism. They could not provide one date
or any instance where I terrorized anyone. Their testimony shows that they don’t
remember what or when I did anything except supposedly “making faces” to
antagonize Davis at the meeting just before he assaulted me. It reminds me of
atheists trying to disprove the existence of something that does not exist. It’s
just as difficult to disprove that something did not happen when nothing did
happen. How does one prove their innocence to a biased Mormon Utah court Judge?
The way the legal system operates in the “latter-days” is that an immense amount
of time and money must be expended to ever get to a resolution. The amount of
paperwork is staggering and you can easily get buried beneath it. A lawsuit will
cost 5,000 dollars just to be written and filed. Then you are hooked in for the
long ride, like two cars with their bumpers locked. The Federal case I won cost
me 60,000 dollars up front, took four years, and seven full days of trial. Taxes
take close to a third of the money awarded to “make you whole.” The government
made money off the government violating my rights. What a racket! And when you
look at the legal system as a whole it’s like gambling in a casino where you
have little chance to win. But the judges and others get lots of nice buildings
and other perks. I bet their neighbors don’t even think about locating a
construction company or “pig farm” next to their houses like they have allowed
happen to me
There are too many lawsuits needing to be filed but only so much time and money
to see them through and the judges know it. The saying in the Utah law biz is:
“Don’t worry, you are only innocent until proven broke.” I have gone the
distance and done a good job preparing my case for inevitable appeals to the
higher courts. This past summer Judge Mower again decided against dismissal of
the claims against me after I presented an extensively documented and detailed
Summary Judgment motion. It was pretty apparent that he never even read the
materials. Judge Mower incoherently rattled on about how I had “lost” the
Federal case. My attorney and I guessed how Judge Mower would rule and were well
prepared for an appeal to the higher courts. Justice would eventually be mine.
We filed a motion for the Utah Supreme Court to hear my Interlocutory Appeal and
waited for a couple of months to hear back. The day after the
September 11th
terrorist attack, Chief Justice Howe finally signed a one-sentence denial, which
gave no reason for not allowing the appeal to be heard by the court. They didn’t
refer me to the Utah Court of Appeals so I have nowhere left to appeal. The
court must not have seen any reason to hear my appeal but I think they just
couldn’t tolerate unbelief in their religion especially while our country was
under attack by terrorists. They probably thought that if I’m not guilty then
what is the problem with a trial? Perhaps they used some simple logic such as
the Islamic terrorists are attacking Christian beliefs and Hatch is accused of
attacking the religious beliefs of Mormons so Hatch could also be a terrorist.
There has been a lot of “God Bless America” banter since the September attacks.
Why don’t the religious ask their gods to bless the entire world? Are the gods
only on the side of Americans? What do gods really have to do with crashing
planes into buildings anyway? Did the Islamic gods help the terrorists or did
the Christian gods fail to protect America? I don’t think we should blame
terrorist attacks on gods. They might be blamed on belief in gods but the
persons who took the actions are the ones who should ultimately be held
responsible.
Although I was not informed of the Supreme Court denial to hear my appeal for
over a month, I knew when I heard it that the court was acting in a prejudicial
way. Yes, I know that the court can pick their cases but this was one they just
couldn’t refuse. Insuring that I would be put on trial for terrorism under the
guise of malicious prosecution just because I filed a civil claim for assault is
something the high court needs to deal with. If Davis is guilty of assault then
there can be no basis for his counterclaim of being maliciously prosecuted so
there would be no reason to have a trial about the counterclaims in the first
place. The high court’s refusal to hear the appeal means they can say no ruling
was made one way or the other but by not making a decision a decision was
effectively made to put me on trial and to cause me a lot of expense and
defamation. I shouldn’t have to go through this kind of libel and defamation
when there is no probable cause. If the Supreme Court had heard the appeal they
would have been convinced that the claims against me are premature and
unfounded. The denial to hear my appeal effectively sets a precedent and you
could now see defense attorneys file malicious prosecution claims based merely
on their saying their clients are not guilty. Defendants can now accuse their
victims of terrorism for filing complaints against them prior to termination in
their favor and have those counterclaims heard in the same trial. I foresee many
appeals and clogged courts.
The denial of my appeal by the Utah Supreme Court has a very chilling effect on
anyone who has to fight to protect their rights because they can now be counter
sued prior to having their claims heard at trial for daring to make accusations.
My situation is similar to being hit with a SLAPP suit. SLAPP suits are
“Strategic lawsuits against public participation” and they are a serious menace
to free speech because they cost the plaintiff time and money defending the
counter allegations for initially filing their claims. Filing an assault claim
is not a SLAPP suit but claiming a campaign of hate and terror” is. No one can
really afford lawsuits anyway but SLAPP’s make it so much more expensive that
you no longer really have recourse to the courts. It keeps people in line, to
conform, and silences free speech. In my case, I not only got assaulted but also
got sued for daring to seek help from the courts. This is an intimidation
lawsuit meant to stifle my free speech in a public meeting about governmental
policies. SLAPP suits attack the Petition clause of the First Amendment of our
Constitution that insures the right to petition the government for redress of
grievances. In Utah, you do so now at your own risk.
I can still appeal the case after the trial but that will cost thousands dollars
more. If the Supreme Court then overrules Judge Mower by finding that the
malicious prosecution claims should have not been allowed at the trial we will
all be stuck with a retrial and additional expenses. The high court could and
should have heard my appeal. So why wouldn’t they hear it? They had plenty of
time to read the basis for the appeal and I think they knew they would have a
tough time ruling against me. Finally, after the September terrorist attacks,
full of recrimination and anger at what they perceived as an attack on the
religious values of America, they decided to just duck the problem and allow me
to be put on trial for terrorism. The policy of the courts in Utah appears to be
to only take a case when they can see it will result in a win for the religious
majority. If there is any question they just don’t accept the case to be heard.
It’s really no skin off their backs.
As a Human Ecologist, I study the interrelationships between humans and their
environment. I try to synthesize and integrate observations into knowledge to
make recommendations for improvements. But anyone can look around our planet.
You don’t have to be a Human Ecologist to see that almost every conflict and war
is based on ethnic and religious issues. Each group claiming they know the
absolute truth and deserve to dominate everything in a particular area. They
drive out the minority who don’t believe as they do. Wars are generally about
forcing people to conform that they don’t already control. Southern Utah and
particularly Garfield County, where I live, is infamous for battles in the war
between Mormons and environmentalists over development and power. The Mormon
majority feels persecuted by the pro environmental minority. A May 1988 National
Public Radio broadcast about the Burr Trail paving controversy, correctly
portrayed this on-going religious war. The introduction to the radio program
stated:
"A philosophical and religious war is raging over an area of public land in
southern Utah known as the Colorado Plateau. Central to the conflict is the
issue of paving a single lane dirt road, which would give easier access for
tourists and developers to land rich in natural resources. Mormon
fundamentalists who have farmed the land for a hundred years believe that to
follow the Old Testament mandate to "go forth and multiply" they must make of
the land all that is possible. Environmentalists believe with equal fervor in a
pantheistic view that any assault on the land is an assault on God and man in
nature. The fight over whose is the right and mandate to serve as "stewards of
the Land" is explored by Scott Carrier.”
I just wish they’d end their religious war or take it somewhere else. Both sides
are wrong if they want to justify their actions on a grandiose scheme involving
supernatural gods. They are really battling over who controls power not what is
in the best interest of the earth. You would think after hearing this radio
program that the only people who care about environmental issues are religious
people. That is probably because of the mindset that the universe is created and
ruled by gods. But there are other people who care about the land that are not
religious. They want to preserve what is left of valuable and important lands
that have international implications. They care about nature and humans.
I really do care about the earth and I have concerns with how humans are
relating to their environment. I have tried to live a much simpler, self-reliant
lifestyle based on frugality and efficiency. I produce much of my own food, work
independently, believe in sensible moderation, I embrace a “pay as you go”
financial policy, and take responsibility for my impact on the planet. I try not
to be hypocritical, bullshit, or intimidate anyone. I admit to trying to
communicate to people to think in alternative ways about their lives and the
impacts we all have on the planet. I believe in non-violence and desire peace in
the world. I do not support destructive practices and live as a vegetarian
mainly because of all the pain and suffering being caused to animals. I believe
in reality and do not want to wait for gods to punish people in an eternal
afterlife that there is no evidence for. Religionists have condemned me to
eternal torment but I would never do that to them. I have tried to live a
private and quiet life free of the stress of litigation. I don’t hate anyone or
anything because hate does not accomplish anything. It makes things worse. War
and conflict don’t really solve problems either. They basically cause pain and
destruction to nature and the innocent. Religious followers should stop feuding
over who the real stewards of the earth are and work for basic sense goals of
protection of the planet we all share. But religions claim god provided the
entire planet for human use. And if they act wrongfully they will pay in an
afterlife. I think that we each have this one life and that is all we can really
be sure of. We should live well and do the best with the one life we have now.
I think we can spend our time doing what is right in the world and still enjoy a
good life. I founded the Boulder Regional Group in 1983 to help identify issues
and raise concerns about problems with human use of the environment especially
in the spectacular canyons of the Escalante area where I live. I initiated the
“Home Project” to develop public policy strategies that deliberately work to
moderate the wasteful consumption of natural resources. Americans use more
resources per capita than other people in the world. We can live more
efficiently and reduce our use of resources and still live well. The Home
Project is an intentional effort to live a simpler lifestyle that is morally
responsible and has a lower impact to the earth. It is not a terrorist
organization or group cell. We do not have tax-exempt status because we don’t
need or want it. We can act politically and we don’t want others to have to pay
our way. I began developing alternatives for public policy by observing patterns
of Human use. Mormons and others may not like being observed or disagree with my
conclusions but I have a right to think and speak. Larry Davis may not like it
and be upset that I complain about government policies but he shouldn’t be
allowed to claim emotional distress because I petition our government.
We shouldn’t ruin the earth but respect and understand it. 2001 was the second
warmest year since the mid 1800’s. Fifteen of the warmest years since then have
all come since 1980. Sea levels rose 8-12 inches overall during the last century
and are predicted to rise as much as 36 inches this century. Apparently, there
are major climatic changes taking place that have been accelerated by our
industrial progress over the past two centuries and these changes are not being
caused by gods. Extinction of species is at epidemic levels and there are
problems for the earth and it’s inhabitants. Some environmentalists now hope
that the planet itself is actually a god and can save itself. But that is the
old arrogant and anthropomorphic thinking of humans again. Putting a human face
on everything is not realistic. The Earth is alive but not like some
supernatural god. But the Earth and nature are not gods nor are they human
animals. They need to be respected for exactly what they are just as each of us
as individuals should be respected for who we are. Nature is powerful and
doesn’t need the hype or shadow phenomenon of the supernatural to give it
authority. Nature is not magical. Nature is awesome and very powerful. There is
so much we don’t know about our planet yet many people think that it is mundane
and thrive on fantasy about other life in the universe. But science is proving
there can be few places in the universe that can create or sustain life. The
natural universe is infinite but the distances are so immense that it is very
unlikely our species will ever come into contact with any other life forms.
Nature, not gods, rules our world and by acting responsibly we can help nature
and ourselves. That is how we can truly honor the Earth. There is no need to
rely on gods for reasons to want to do the right things. Although, the Earth is
a very rare planet in the universe, it doesn’t mean that gods created it. To the
contrary, it is very rare and special precisely because of its natural history.
No other planets have such evolved life forms and ours can’t be replaced by
humans or duplicated by supernatural powers. A description from the book “Rare
Earth” states:
“Our planet coalesced out of the debris from cosmic events at a position within
a galaxy highly appropriate for the eventual evolution of animal life, around a
star also highly appropriate—a star rich in metal, a star found in a safe region
of a spiral galaxy, a star moving very slowly on its galactic pinwheel. Not in
the center of the galaxy, not in a metal-poor galaxy, not in a globular cluster,
nor near an active gamma ray source, not in a multiple-star system, nor even in
a binary, or near a pulsar, or near stars too small, too large, or soon to go
supernova. We became a planet where global temperatures have allowed liquid
water to exist for more than 4 billion years—and for that, our planet had to
have a nearly circular orbit at a distance from a star itself emitting a nearly
constant energy output for a long period of time. Our planet received a volume
of water sufficient to cover most—but not all—of the planetary surface.
Asteroids and comets hit us but not excessively so, thanks to the presence of
giant gas planets such as Jupiter beyond us. In the time since animals evolved
over 600 million years ago, we have not been punched out, although the means of
our destruction by catastrophic impact is certainly there. Earth received the
right range of building materials—and had the correct amount of internal heat—to
allow plate tectonics to work on the planet, shaping the continents required and
keeping global temperatures within a narrow range for several billion years.
Even as the
Sun grew brighter and atmosphere composition changed, the Earth’s remarkable
thermostatic regulating process successfully kept the surface temperature within
livable range. Alone among terrestrial planets we have a large moon, and this
single fact, which sets us apart from Mercury, Venus, and Mars, may have been
crucial to the rise and continued existence of animal life on Earth.”
Supernatural gods wouldn’t need to go through so many specific sequences to be
miraculously created. We evolved to exist when all other places failed for one
reason or another. We are special and should appreciate our planet. Religion and
the supernatural have been set up as better and more real than nature. Nature is
seen as common and profane when compared with the “sacred.” But nature provides
all the sustenance of the world and our lives. By asserting supernatural gods
create and control the universe, religion debases and trivializes nature and
infers it is expendable and replaceable. Religion and the concept of the
supernatural are the antithesis of nature. They are basically anti-nature and
therefore really anti-human as well.
AND THEY CALL THEMSELVES “SAINTS”
Any institution that claims to speak for gods or represents itself as agents of
god, shoulders a heavy burden and responsibility. I think churches should start
taking responsibility for their arrogant claims. We have a right to question
their assertions since they have set themselves apart from and better than
everyone else. The Mormon Church has tried to downplay their differences with
other Christian religions in recent years. They have changed their Logo to
emphasize JESUS CHRIST and to de-emphasize the Latter-Day Saints part.
Historically, the term Mormon was used to distinguish them from the “Disciples
of Christ” church. During the early days of trouble in Ohio and Missouri, the
Mormon Church changed its name. Sidney Rigdon made the announcement to the
assembled Mormon army in Kirtland Ohio on May 4, 1834. The Prophet and High
Council had agreed to change their original name of
“Church of Christ” to
“Church of Latter-day Saints.” By doing so, they hoped to avoid the hated name
of Mormonite. Since something more specific than Christian was desired, they
decided to call themselves “Saints.” How humble is it to refer to yourself as a
Saint? They say it was not arrogance but merely reflected the truth. No wonder
they didn’t fit in and had trouble living with their fellow Americans and other
Christians. The result of the name change was people were even more loath to
call them Latter-day Saints so the label of Mormon stuck. They are going to
always be known as Mormons and the Book of Mormon insures that.
Mormons set themselves above other Christians but when there is animosity for
doing so, they then claim they are being persecuted. But the Mormon Church
stereotyped itself a long time ago. The label that Larry Davis and others have
chosen for themselves, as members of the Mormon Church, is that of “Saint.” I
don’t think that all Mormons are saints so they label me as a “Son of
Perdition,” a traitor to the one true faith, and now Larry Davis has branded me
a terrorist. He is a saint and I am not. As a saint he can now brand me a
terrorist. That doesn’t seem very saint-like. Mormons began as Christians,
changed their name to Latter-day Saints, and are now
not considered Christians
by other Christians so they emphasize Jesus Christ. Like others, I will continue
to use the term Mormon. It is shorter, more correct, and people know whom you
mean when you use it. But the changes are more about image and advertising spin
in efforts to gain converts.
The Mormon Church operates a missionary program 24 hours a day and seven days a
week to gain more converts. The Mormon Church is the major reason the
Olympics
are coming to Salt Lake City and it is more about converting members and gaining
stature for the church than it is athletics. But the bottom line is money. I
don’t just mean Olympic infrastructure and investment scams like Earl Holding
gaining thousands of acres of wilderness at Snow Basin. Nor Orrin Hatch, Jim
Hansen, and their ilk benefiting politically and economically, or the bribery
scandal involving the Mormon dominated Salt Lake Organizing Committee. This is
all about the Mormon Church gaining converts and collecting Ten percent tithing
on the earnings of millions of people. That adds up to a pretty hefty payday for
a church that not only doesn’t pay taxes but also doesn’t even have to report to
the government what they rake in. You might also have noticed how our local
legal system with Federal Judge David Sahm, put an end to all the bad publicity
over the bribery scandal. It just disappeared. I’d bet that he is a Mormon, was
appointed because of Mormon Senator Orrin Hatch and his ruling was based on
religious bias. Judges are above petty religion and political pandering. At
least, they are supposed to be.
I am unhappy about paying for churches to exist. The people who believe in a
religion should pay for that church. They should pay their own way. When they
don’t pay property taxes it means that others who don’t believe in them are
forced to cover some of the costs for their services. Churches should at least
be classified the same as any other non-profit organization. We could then know
how much money is coming in and when they acted politically they would lose
their tax-exempt status. What sanctions are there when the Mormon Church gets
caught meddling in politics? What are they going do—make them pay taxes?
Churches should want to pay their fair share of taxes. It is time the churches
stood on their own and found success and support from their followers. Some
people say that religions do many good things and deserve exemption because they
promote good morals and fight criminal activities. If this is so then they will
prosper under fair and equal taxation like other worthy groups do. But if they
are not really worthy they may deserve to disappear. I personally doubt, without
the preferential support of the government they now enjoy, churches would not be
wealthy or popular.
PRAYER AS AN INSTRUMENT OF OPPRESSION
In January 1996, the town council in Boulder Utah decided they wanted to have
prayer as an agenda item to begin public town meetings. I and a few other
citizens spoke against prayers and we were trashed for speaking out by Larry
Davis and his religious pals. They said prayers were needed now more than ever
because of all the divisiveness and contention in town. They couldn’t see that
the divisiveness in town was primarily a result of religion. They were oblivious
to the truth because they were in the majority.
But because of the resistance,
the town decided to hold two minutes of silence instead for citizens to silently
pray. Davis and others were very angry about the decision even though it gave
them the opportunity to pray. I didn’t like the two minutes of silence either
but I went along with it. So, at the very next town meeting the councilman who
made the motion for two minutes of silence gave a prayer. They had basically
lied to the citizens and gone against their own vote. So the meeting after that
they decided to actually try the two minutes of silence. How would you like to
sit through two minutes of mandatory silence? You can imagine the agony. Ten
seconds of silence might be acceptable but two minutes really upset the
religionists. I guess they just didn’t have that much to say to their gods. They
only wanted public prayer at the meetings to show everyone attending just who
ran the town. They had an elected majority of Mormons so they wanted Mormon
prayers. If they couldn’t have at least a Christian prayer then there was really
no point. People are animals too! And like some other animals in nature, they
needed to mark their territory by pissing; I mean praying over their territory
and turf.
A letter to the town dated April 5, 1996 from The Garfield County Planning
Commission chair irately denounced the two minutes of silence instead of prayer
because the town was “setting a dangerous precedent in determining future
decisions relating to town matters.” Religionists seemed to be angrier about the
fact the minority faction won the debate than the problems with two minutes of
silent prayer. They didn’t ask the time be shortened to 30 seconds or something
more reasonable. No, the letter said: “Is the Minority always going to rule?”
and further “It was very interesting to me that the people who knew, when they
moved here, that this is a predominantly Christian community, were the
minority.” So the dangerous precedent being set was that since the ruling
majority is religious therefore the minority should also have to pray. And the
majority should rule with an iron fist: “The long time values and Christian
beliefs of our town are very important to me and I will support them in any and
every way I can. Those who do not like these values, do not agree with them, or
are unhappy here with them are always free to go someplace else to find their
kind of happiness. Please reconsider this issue and that the majority should
rule in accordance with the American way of life in this country.” Love it or
Leave It! And I guess that really sums up the thinking of many here in Utah. At
least the Boulder Town Council agreed because that night in their meeting they
took another vote and decided to have prayers at the meetings. The majority
ruled and who cares about the feelings or rights of those who are not part of
the majority.
That’s one thing about Mormons and other religionists, they seem to have little
concern for the feelings of others not of their faith. When I found they went
ahead with prayers, I wrote the town a letter asking for their formal policy and
documentation of holding prayers at the meetings. I also suggested they run the
issue past their attorneys to see if I was right about the 1993 Utah Supreme
Court decision parameters concerning prayer at public meetings. I didn’t get a
response for several months but I did hear a lot about how the congress and
legislatures hold prayer, that our money says “In God We Trust,” The more or
less mandatory Pledge of Allegiance contains “One nation under God, and that the
School Board conducts prayers at their meetings so why shouldn’t Boulder town.
I discovered the school board was illegally praying at their meetings and since
I was a property tax payer I contacted the ACLU to write them and complained to
them myself. They gave me a lot of run around and denounced me for daring to
complain. It took two years and my threatening a lawsuit for the school board to
end the illegal practice of prayer. While they had the opportunity to conform to
state law they eventually decided it wasn’t worth having their Mormon prayers if
others would also allowed to also speak. That’s what Salt Lake City also decided
after they “won” the prayer case. We didn’t have a prayer today at this meeting
here in the Salt Lake City public library but we could have. Even in a
government meeting we have the right to give one in Utah if we are on the
meeting agenda to speak. I could give my opinion today, that from personal
experience, nothing fails as consistently as prayer. But we all had the right to
pray when we spoke at a meeting anyway. What did the 1993 Utah Supreme Court
prayer decision really mean? It basically got the religious majority off the
hook after they got sued. The court took the case to help out their religious
brethren. But as I have recently experienced first hand, the decision basically
did nothing but create more confusion that ended up causing me to get assaulted
and defamed for merely trying to explain to the town what the decision said.
Most places in our state continue to hold prayers in public meetings just like
before. They have instituted no formal policy just as if no parameters were ever
set by the high court.
I was raised in Utah as a Mormon and I always thought the rest of the world is
like it is here. There may be some other places that are predominantly religious
like Utah but the latest Mormon temple dedication somewhere else in the world is
probably not going to be a prominent news item on the evening news like it is
here. Most people elsewhere think Utah is a “narrow and peculiar” place. You
hear a lot of Mormons say to go elsewhere if you don’t like the dominance of the
church in Utah. And many of my friends and some of my family have done just
that. There is a lot of pressure to conform here in Utah. The world may be
welcome to visit but if they don’t like the culture they are more than welcome
to leave. Religion enforces social conformity and discourages independent
critical thought. Religion is really all about control and conformity. Such
conformity erodes self-confidence, personal responsibility and self-reliance.
Religious establishments are designed to gain economic, political, and social
power for their followers to the exclusion of all others. Non-believers are
isolated, intimidated, humiliated, and persecuted by “the chosen faithful of the
one true religion.” This holds true in Utah.
I define religion as “the unquestioning belief in hypothetical supernatural
powers to be obeyed as rulers and worshipped as creators of the universe.” All
religions must include some belief in supernatural gods. Religion is all about
obedience to god and attempting to supplicate supernatural powers to get
beneficial results. Religion is not merely a system of morality or a code of
ethics. The English word religion is derived from the Latin root word “religare”
which means, “to bind back again.” Religion is mostly about conformity and
binding people back to superstitious belief. Religion is enslavement and tyranny
because it requires absolute obedience and the unquestioning belief of faith to
bind people to superstition. The uncertainty of the unknown and fear of death
offer opportunities for unscrupulous people to take advantage of the weak
minded. Threats of eternal damnation and promises of a blissful afterlife are
powerful enticements for believers. By promising rewards based on unfounded
assertions, leaders operate a religious con game of control. It is an elaborate
trick used to gain power and control over people. The supernatural concept makes
religious belief unassailable by science or facts.
Bigotry is defined as the unquestioning, obstinate, and blind adherence to a
particular belief. Such unquestioning belief or faith in religion promotes
self-righteous arrogance and bigotry. Religion is bigotry and because it is
divisive it has caused untold misery, intolerance, and strife throughout
history. The dogmatic doctrines of religion do not allow for freedom from
religion or that they could be wrong. Religion arrogantly proclaims itself to be
absolutely true without any real evidence. Only through open discussion, free
from intimidation and retribution can the deceptions of supernatural religious
belief be forced to disappear into reality. I have been branded a terrorist
because I am asking for freedom of speech and belief. The religious faithful
seem to be afraid of such freedom.
“GOD BLESS AMERICA” and to hell with everyone else
Our national motto of “In God We Trust” is relatively recent and was passed into
law during the 1950’s when McCarthyism and communist fear mongering of the Cold
War was at its height. This was also the time when “One nation under God” was
inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance. The earliest known reference to a Pledge
of Allegiance was in the nationally distributed magazine “Youth’s Companion” in
September 1892. The particular magazine edition was published in conjunction
with the National Public School’s Celebration of Columbus Day. The pledge was
attributed to a staff writer and the original pledge she composed included only
“one empire” and not “one nation under god.” Congress adopted the present
version of the Pledge in 1954, the year I was born. Congress made it official
but did not mandate its recitation but as I found out in schools and at present
town meetings, if you don’t stand and recite it you will be treated very badly.
The founders of our nation did not create the national motto and pledge.
Religionists have steadily been trying to force their beliefs into our
government ever since the founders created a secular government. Our national
motto started out as E PLURIBUS UNUM “One unity composed of many parts in 1786.
It should have stayed that way but religionists just can’t be happy until
everyone bows to their gods. Our money now says “In God We Trust.” The first
time it appeared on a coin was in1864 and they got it on more coins in 1908. The
motto first appeared on paper currency in 1955 when congressman Lyndon Johnson
introduced legislation later signed by Eisenhower.
I don’t know when swearing on the Bible and repeating the phrase “So Help Me
god” started but I have found that some Judges in Utah don’t like it when you
ask, even ahead of time, not to have to swear to god in their courtrooms. Judge
David L. Mower made quite a fuss and tried to belabor the fact that I didn’t
believe in god before he would allow me to merely affirm to tell the truth. He
then ruled against me but was later overturned.
The posting of the Biblical Ten Commandments in public buildings and courtrooms
continues to get the support of religious zealots but I think they are just
plain wrong. The government should never have established any of these religious
mottos and beliefs. Christians have attempted to change and amend the
Constitution since the early 1800’s but they have always failed. I am worried
that with all the God Bless America hysteria they will again try to alter the
Constitution. After all, the Mormons predict their church will someday form the
government for the entire planet. That would be a worldwide theocracy. Having
religious clerics running the nation is very bad idea. It would be a lot like
the Taliban or Iran. Our government should remain neutral in matters concerning
religion.
A Republican Utah legislator who is also a Mormon, named Richard Siddoway
currently feels it is very important to pass legislation to get the national
motto of “In God We Trust”
[
external link ] prominently displayed in our schools. Brother Siddoway evidently, has not read Washington’s quote and knows little about the
history of our nation. He’d probably say his lack of education results from not
having enough religion in the schools but since I was schooled here myself, I
can testify that there was no lack of religious indoctrination in the schools of
Bountiful and Davis County. Instead of more religion we should try teaching
about our secular republic. Brother Siddoway, like other religious zealots,
probably thinks god will start protecting America if we would all just kneel to
the Lord. But religionists like Brother Siddoway know that belief in religion is
the foundation of nationalism so by pushing religion down our throats they think
they are acting patriotically. I guess he missed the famous Samuel Johnson quote
that “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” Shoving “In God We Trust”
down our throats is nothing more than indoctrination and it doesn’t work here
anymore than it did in Afghanistan. Perhaps Brother Siddoway, Larry Davis,
attorney Jim Bradshaw, Representative Jim Hansen, Senator Orrin Hatch, Governor
Mike Leavitt, SLOC president Mitt Romney, Judge David L. Mower and other Mormons
should actually read the Bill of Rights and pay particular attention to where
the First Amendment insures freedom of belief for all citizens. I’d like to
close my talk by reading my business brochure from 1994 when I first opened.
This is evidently one of the principle pieces of terrorist evidence against me.
Freedom From Religion is Freedom of Religion
The freedom of belief is a fundamental concept of the United States
Constitution. We have the right to believe as we choose and to openly express
our opinions. This includes the right to question the beliefs of others and to
openly reject them. We have the right to not believe in or be forced to support
any religion. The government may not give preference to religion or deprive the
rights of those who choose not to believe in religion. It must protect the
rights of everyone to have equal access and due process of law. Representative
democracy provides the opportunity for the majority of citizens to elect
officials who hold similar views and beliefs. But even if the majority belongs
to a particular religion they may not force their doctrines on non-believers.
Minority rights are in the best interest of everyone. It is important that
elected officials remember to protect the rights of all citizens, no matter what
beliefs they hold.
Our constitution established a godless, secular democracy that was the first of
its kind in the world. Historically, the governance of most nations was based on
"divine authority" rather than from the popular support of the people. Such
theocratic government asserted control through the power held by religions. Many
early American colonists were fleeing from religious persecution conducted by
The Church of England and other European theocracies. Soon each of the early
American colonies had their own predominant religion which in turn persecuted
unbelievers. The founders of the United States knew from personal experience the
strife and division that comes with religious passion. They realized that there
could be no real freedom of belief unless the government remained neutral and
allowed citizens to have freedom from religion. We can take pride in the great
accomplishment of the founding of our democratic republic.
Some people believe that the United States is a religious Christian nation but
it is obvious from our history and Constitution that this is not true. The first
four Presidents of the United States were not Christians nor did they believe
the Bible was divinely inspired. The founders of our country declared that there
was no official religion. Our nation stands as a beacon for tolerance of all
beliefs and a bastion of free speech. The State of Utah is dominated by
Latter-day Saint Mormons and there are those who would like to change our
government into a theocracy. We must not be intimidated by the religious
fanaticism in Utah and across the nation. It would be a mistake to return to the
divisive "Dark Ages" of ignorance, superstition, oppression, and strife. It is
better and more important to educate people rather than to indoctrinate them. To
remain silent while religionists destroy our constitutional rights would be a
mistake from which we might never recover. We must stand and protect our right
of Freedom from Religion.
©
March, 2002
|
Thanks
to everyone for your support and help during my difficult time of being
labeled a "terrorist" for my non-belief in religion. I give permission for
anyone to copy and post my speech to the Atheists of Utah on January 6,
2002, as long as you reference nowscape.com/atheism/Freedom_From_Religion_in_Utah.htm
as the source.
The
trial will begin on Tuesday the 2nd through the 5th of April 2002 in
Panguitch, Utah. The terrorist allegations have gone on long enough
especially after the tragic events of September 11,2001. I have been
deeply hurt by accusations of conducting a "campaign of hate and terror"
by Larry Davis and his attorney James Bradshaw of Salt Lake City. You can
contact Julian Hatch at the following email address:
freedomfromreligioninutah@yahoo.com
Thanks again,
Julian Dean Hatch |
