Church of Reality

Current Event Edicts

Menu of Reality

Latest News

Syndicate
Church of Reality

Podcast

Current Event Edicts
Responding to Events in the News

Under God in the Pledge

Edict Date: 11-26-2007

A famous Atheist - Michael Newdow - has again filed a lawsuit challenging the United States laws requiring money to have the phrase "In God we Trust" and the addition of "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. A lot of people don't know this but the words "Under God" were added to the pledge to make a political statement during the cold war. The intent was to state that the Communists were "godless Atheists" and that Americans we believers and it was intended to associate Communism with godless Atheism and that these were our nations enemies. So the intent of the addition of "Under God" in the Pledge was, in part, to get people to hate Atheists. Since we Realist are Atheists we see the Pledge as an attack on us. To get people to hate us.

"Under God" was added to the Pledge in 1954 to associate Communism with Atheism and get people to hate Atheists

If you must recite the Pledge then in place of "Under God" we say "One Nation, in Reality, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

The same is true to a lesser extent with "In God we Trust" on the money. It is a statement by the government that there are two classes of citizens, believers and Atheists, and the government is aligned with believers.

Ever since the beginning of America Christians have fought to declare America a "Christian Nation" The first 13 colonies however were different flavors of Christians. Some state required that you be Catholic to hold office while other states required that you be Protestant. In order to bring these different Christian factions together and incorporate the Jews, Muslims, and others our founding fathers specifically excluded all religious tests, made all religions and non-religions equal in the eyes of the law, and created what is now called the separation of church and state.

This made America the great secular society it is today where all citizens live as equals. But our equality is still under attack as the Christians are still trying to change America from a secular nation to a Christian nation. We see the issues that Newdow is bringing as part of the attempt to cause America to evolve towards Christianity.

I am also granting Michael Newdow authority to argue our position to the court and I am ordaining him as a Beacon to speak in behalf of the church.

In support of this cause the Church of Reality today is filing this letter with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Our position is as follows:

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
P.O. Box 193939
San Francisco, CA 94119-3939

November 24th 2007

Re: Newdow, et al. v. Carey, et al.
Case Nos.: 05-17257, 05-17344, 06-15093

Church of Reality’s position regarding Coinage Policy and the Pledge

Dear Honorable Justices of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,

I’m writing to you today in my capacity as First One of the Church of Reality. I hold the title First One as the founder of the church. Since it was my idea I am the "first one" to think of it. Essentially I am the Pope of Reality.

The Church of Reality is a religion dedicated to the pursuit of the understanding of reality as it really is. We are a monorealistic religion in that we believe in the one true reality than includes everything that is actually real. We evangelize reality and we believe that any time anyone says the word reality, the world gets a little smarter.

Realists are not Atheists in the traditional sense. Our would view is that we would believe in a god if it showed up in a form the was independently observable by any person whether they are a believer or not. However for us to positively consider something as real or even likely real there has to be a scientific reason to constitute a basis for that belief. Since we are Realist and have made a commitment to reality it is antithetical to our belief to be forced to be part of a collective, our nation, who speaks in our behalf stating that the Abrahamic God is real. Our nation is part of our personal identity and the government is stating who we are and what we believe in on our behalf and the message on the money and in the Pledge definitely does not represent us. As a result we feel that Christians, Jews and Muslims are of a superior social status. Many Christians commonly assert that America is a Christian nation and that if we aren’t Christian we can just leave. The message on the money and in the Pledge are used, in our opinion, as a message that America recognizes itself as a Christian dominated nation. Thus we Realists have an interest in hearing what this court has to say. We want to know if the Establish Clause is real or if it’s just ceremonial statements of religious equality that are not to be taken seriously.

Pursuant to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution it is the duty of this court to ensure that and decision of the court to be religiously neutral. The government is prohibited from favoring one religion over another. However, as a Realist I also have to acknowledge that it is unlikely this court will make a decision ordering the removal of the phrase "In God we Trust" from United States money. The arguments that reference the issue of money also apply to the pledge.

NEWDOW IS CORRECT

Technically we agree with the position Michael Newdow, that "In God we Trust" is a religious statement and prefers the deity of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) over those of other religions and non-religions such as Atheism, Humanism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. As a realist I find it troubling that the government would state, on behalf of all our citizens, that our nation trusts an invisible deity who has not appeared on this continent, except to the Mormons, and has no formal relationship to our government.

It is also our position that if the money didn’t already say "In God we Trust" and that if Congress were proposing it now that it would clearly be deemed unconstitutional. Just as it is clear that changing it to "In Jesus we Trust" would be deemed unconstitutional if that were proposed today. The only difference between God and Jesus is that God believers represent a somewhat larger set than Jesus believers and that a tradition has been established which will cause an uproar if disturbed. In fact we see a pattern that Christians, who are actively trying to alter laws in their favor and undermine the establishment clause have used as a tactic altering the money, altering the pledge, trying to sneak prayer into schools, and altering the definition of science to substitute religious dogma such as creationism and Intelligent Design. It is a historical fact that the alteration of the Pledge and the altering of the money was done explicitly for the purpose of trying to Christianize a nation founded on the secular principle that all religions are equal and that the government is prohibited by the Establishment clause from showing a religious preference.

The way we see it the phrase "In God we Trust" is a short form of a much more profound statement. Since it is REQUIRED to be on ALL money and was put there by CONGRESS under LAW then it is a proclamation by the United States on behalf of all the people stating, "All of the People of the United States of America, and through it’s government under the power of law does hereby declare and decree that WE as a nation acknowledge the existence and the significance of the God of Abraham of the Old Testament, (GOD), and to the EXCLUSION of all other deities and non-deities, and that we as a nation agree to worship ONLY this deity by declaring our TRUST without having established any official relationship with it through either contract or treaty."

In 1954 Congress altered the Pledge to include the words "Under God" at the height of the clod war. The Soviet states were associated with Atheist and Congress wanted to distinguish Americans from the "godless Communists". Since members of the Church of Reality are also godless the pledge reminds Americans that we Atheists are the enemies of America just like the Communists. It is our position that the words "under God" were added specifically to associate Atheism with Communism and generate hatred towards Atheists.

The Pledge of Allegiance is even more offensive to us. Where "In God we Trust" on money is a passive statement the Pledge contains "Under God" and is REQUIRED to be recited by Realist children who belong to a religion that does not believe in God. In our view it is the same as government controlled forced prayer. It is no different that making Christian Children say "Under Mohammed" in spite of their religious upbringing. As the founder of the Church of Reality I have decreed that our children WILL NOT SAY "UNDER GOD" and we will, if necessary defy any laws and any order of any courts that compel us to pay homage to a foreign deity that we do not accept.

REMEDY

In our religion it is our custom to figure out solution to problems. In this case there is a requirement for neutrality and the reality that a phrase that is on its face a religious statement, stay on some money. One possible solution is that the Mint issue a variety of religious series coins covering a wide variety of religious concepts. This model allows for neutrality without the requirement of causing a religious uproar,

We recognize that a variety of concepts of deities have been part of history for thousands of years and historical events are often the theme of coinage. However the Abrahamic deity witch includes Judaism, Christianity, and Islam does not represent the full spectrum of religious thought and our position is that there be a reasonable amount of representation of other religions that do not believe in this particular deity.

It is also a tradition in coinage to do a series of coins representing a concept. One such series is the 50 states on quarters series where every state gets their own state quarter representing who they are to the nation.

As to the Pledge, we find it unacceptable and we will not participate in this religious ritual. Our view is that God doesn’t exist and that factually no nation is under God. The United States does not have a formal relationship with any deities where the deity has signed a treaty in which we are bound. So even if God exists, there is no laws that indicate that we are under a deity. The money issue is possibly tolerable if amended. The Pledge is unacceptable.

WE WANT TO BE INCLUDED

We therefore ask this court to consider an order that would lead to the minting of coins that say, "In Reality we Trust". We believe that the Church of Reality represents an important religious concept that is actually bigger than God. In support of our position the Church of Reality states as follows:

To legally be a religion the courts have consistently ruled that the religious belief be sincere. But what is the definition of "sincere"? We argue that one definition of sincere is that you believe that the precepts of your religion are real. That your holy books describe reality. It is our contention that and group that claimed to be a religion, but refused to state that their beliefs had some relationship to reality, would fail the "sincere" test.

Since the legal definition of all religions must include a relationship with reality we contend that reality is a more universal concept across all religions that God is. Not all religions believe in God. But all religions believe that whatever they believe is real.

Our definition of church membership transcends the concept of the individual. Our world view is that we are all linked together as a great community of minds sharing the "Tree of Knowledge" which is the sum total of human understanding. Whenever a person thinks about reality they become "Real in the Sacred Moment" and during that period of time they become a member of the Church of Reality. And our religious culture includes what we call "Communion" which is whenever two or more people are discussing reality itself.

Because everyone in the world has thought about reality at some time in their lives then everyone in the world has been a Realist at some point in their lives. We also contend that every adult person on the planet has had a conversation with someone about reality and has therefore performed communion. Our religion includes to some extent every person on the planet. So we have the larger membership. We include everyone.

Because reality has existed since the beginning of time and that reality has played a role in every historical event, we contend that Reality has at least as much historical justification to be on a coin as God.

Our world view is that reality plays and important part in every religion because without reality no religion would exist.
When this court makes its important decisions, does it not take reality into account? We ask that this court honor our beliefs by taking reality into account when deciding this case.

It is our position that a reality coin would honor all other religions because to be on a coin next to a reality coin is a statement by other religions that they are comfortable with reality and that they are sincere in their beliefs. To exclude "In Reality we Trust" on the coins is the same as making a statement challenging their sincerity.

Similarly, if this court were to take the position that the phrase "In God we Trust" has no religious meaning it would be an insult to America’s monotheists, and act that would violate the Establishment Clause. Can a monotheistic religion claim that they are sincere believers in a nation where the courts have ruled that God is meaningless? If I were a theist I would have to object to that, and I hereby do object in their behalf. This court can not say that God has no meaning.

Nor can this court say that reality has no meaning. We in the Church of Reality believe that we wouldn’t be here if not for reality. We believe that reality has touched all our lives at one time or another. We believe that every person has some kind of relationship with reality, and that if you take a person’s reality away from them, that they will cease to exist. We contend that if not for reality, God couldn’t possibly exist. How could God be real if there was no reality?

WHEREFORE the Church of Reality suggests to this honorable court that, if Newdow is denied the remedy he seeks, that this court order that some money have the phrase "In Reality we Trust" in place of "In God we Trust". Or that some money not have any religious message. Or that some money depict scientific history such as the big bang that created the universe. It is our position that if a religious statement is allowed that it can’t be EXCLUSIVE of religious statements.

Our compromise position is that although money may be deemed by this court to be allowed ALLOWED to have "In God we Trust" that it would violate the Establishment Clause to REQUIRE that one form of religious art or one religion’s deity be preferred over that of another, or of that of no deity. In the eyes of the law all religions must be equal.

As to the Pledge, we in the Church of Reality will not accept any ruling that our children be required to say the words "under God" and that if this court upholds this requirement then we will defy it. The government can not REQUIRE religious speech from those who find such speech personally offensive.

America must not Legalize Torture

Edict Date 09-07-2006

On September 6th 2006 American President Bush gave a speech promoting the use of secret prisons where people are tortured. Although he said that what is done there isn't torture, he has a unique definition of torture and he seeks to get Congress to pass a law to allow it. Bush is asking Congress to:

give him authorization to allow the President and the CIA to continue to run a network of secret torture camps.
give people who use torture immunity from being prosecuted for committing war crimes.
allow the President and the CIA to violate the Geneva Conventions relating to torture, inhumane treatment, and to deny access to prisoners and inspections by international organizations like the Red Cross.
redefine the legal meaning of torture and inhumane treatment to create the illusion that torture and inhumane treatment are lawful.

Our philosophy is that torture is always wrong and should never be legalized under any circumstances. Torture is the tool of the barbarian and it has no place in modern civilization. To legalize torture is a crime against humanity. No civilized society can ever knowingly allow torture to be sanctioned for any purpose whatsoever. Torture is just plain evil. When a nation such as America makes torture acceptable then they are sending the world a message that behaving like a barbarian is acceptable. To accept that we can torture others is to accept that others can torture us. It also increases hatred towards Americans and it becomes a recruitment tool for terrorists to build their forces. They seize on our moral weakness as a reason to fight and kill us. It also make brutality acceptable and leads to the widespread use of torture throughout the world. Torture undermines civilization and is contrary to our Principle of Positive Evolution.

Not only is torture counter-productive as a tactic because it rallies more enemies against us, but it is an unreliable method for extracting information from the victim. A person being tortured will say what he or she thinks the torturer wants to hear, true or not. Furthermore, it makes monsters out of the torturer, twisting their psyche and warping their values. It is a crime to facilitate the kind of person who is attracted to that kind of brutal behavior or to order a person who wouldn't otherwise countenance such evil to participate in it. Realists are urged to actively resist any attempts to legitimize any form of torture under any conditions.

President Bush has been advocating the redefinition of torture for several years now. The last time he tried to redefine torture it led to the Abu Ghraib scandal, which enraged the Islamic world and led to another generation rising up against the "Great Satan". America is not the Great Satan but if we pass laws legalizing torture we could turn into one and the rest of the world would be justified in rising up against us. We must therefore resist the temptation to degenerate into becoming barbarians and bringing the rest of the world down to a barbarian level. The idea that America would even entertain the idea of legalizing torture is absolute madness.

Israel is no different than any other nation

Edict Date 08-01-2006

There is nothing special about Israel as compared to any other country in the world. Nor is there anything special about the rights of Jews as compared to any other religion. Judaism like Islam and Christianity is just another religion. Lebanon has the same right to exists as Israel does. The right to exist is an earned right and it is based on a country's ability to respect the rights of others and to work towards peace and oppose war.

The Jews are not God's chosen people because there is no such thing as God. Since God doesn't exist there is no God to have made the choice. The position that Judaism has any form of superior status in any way to any other people is false. Realists are not obligated in any way to recognize this faulty assertion.

Our sacred Principle of Scrutiny and Doubt asserts that everyone and everything can be criticized and this includes criticizing Israel and Judaism. Everyone makes mistakes but mistakes can be fixed. The first step in fixing mistakes is to be able to discuss them freely and openly without being subject to the assertion that any criticism of Israel and Judaism is anti-semitic.

This of course not only applies to Jews but to all other religions as well. Christians are not superior because they are "saved" nor are Muslims superior in the Infidels nor are Realists superior because we attempt to understand reality. We are all one people living (for now) on one planet that we all share and we all have the same rights and responsibilities to be here and to find a way to get along. We have a responsibility to form peaceful communities where people of different opinions, traditions, and backgrounds can live together, respect each other, and learn the best of what we all have to offer to the Tree of Knowledge.

Israel's Invasion of Lebanon is Wrong

Edict Date 07-18-2006

The Church of Reality condemns the unprovoked attack by Israel against the nation of Lebanon as a crime against humanity. This undeclared war against this new sovereign democracy of Lebanon is unjustified and we urge the free thinking people of the world to speak out and condemn this act and to resist accepting an artificial justification for what is essentially an act of terrorism.

Lebanon is not Hezbollah. Israel is not attacking Hezbollah only. Israel is destroying the nation of Lebanon. This condemnation is focused on what Israel is doing to Lebanon as an innocent third party and the unprovoked attacks on Lebanese civilians destruction of the country's infrastructure. This is also not an endorsement of Islamic terrorism which is actually a far greater threat than Israel's insanity. Israel's acts only make their enemies stronger and Israel is acting against its own cause and against peace. Israel is increasing the hate and you don't achieve peace through injustice.

The human population is organized into societies. We are a community that includes many levels of organization. But ultimately everyone on the planet is a member of the human community. Especially in this age of the Internet and world wide communication it is clear that every person on the planet of every culture has the right to live a quiet peaceful life and has the responsibility to respect the rights and liberties of others. A citizen of Lebanon and a citizen of Israel are equal and neither one has any greater rights than the other. Both have a responsibility to maintain peace and respect the right of others to live and thrive in the world.

A war is like a sickness that infects the soul of the human race itself. Every war affects every person on the planet and has a cost to humanity itself.

War is always wrong although it is sometimes necessary. War always represents failure and is something that even when justified is a shameful act. War must always be a act of last resort after all other options have been tried. It should only be contemplated as a defense and with the consensus of the world community. We are all part of the human race and although we are individual life forms we all are part of a greater life form, humanity, and war is a sickness within humanity itself. Every war affects every person on the planet and takes a toll on the positive evolution of all of us. Thus we all are paying the price for every war that we allow to occur. To start an unjust war it to commit a crime against humanity itself.

Rabbis burning Israeli Flag in Protest of Zionism

In this instance Israel has attacked the nation of Lebanon without provocation. Israel has destroyed Lebanon's infrastructure. Israel has targeted and destroyed their roads, bridges, airports, utilities, power plants and ports. Israel is bombing the civilian populations without regard to the innocent lives that they are destroying. To attack a nation in this way is an attack on every single person in the nation of Lebanon who have done nothing at all to justify this attack.

The government of Lebanon is a new democracy moving away from Syrian domination and struggling to form a secular society where people from all cultures can live in peace. Within it's borders and part of it's culture is Hezbollah which is an enemy of Israel and was formed in response to a 1982 incursion by Israel. In condemning Israel the Church of Reality is not endorsing or justifying the acts of Islamic terrorists. We recognize however that Lebanon is not Hezbollah and for Israel to attack the nation of Lebanon because Hezbollah kidnapped two soldiers is almost as insane as America attacking Iraq over 9-11. The kidnapping of two people is no justification for a war and certainly not a justification to destroy a third party nation who was not involved in the offense against Israel.

Israel claims that the attack is justified because Lebanon failed to eliminate the Hezbollah threat. However, the current government is a new democracy that hasn't been around long enough to have the power to stop Hezbollah. Hezbollah is not just a hate group that exists to hate Jews and eliminate Israel. Hezbollah exists in part as a defense to Israeli aggressions to defend the population from acts of Israeli terrorism. To the extent that Israel uses terrorism and shows a complete disrespect for the lives of the people of all other nations it is their fault in part that they are hated in the region. It is attacks like this that fuel groups like Hezbollah and even if they kill every member of that group they will cause an even bigger group to be formed in response. War breeds war and hate breeds hate and Israel's crime is as much a crime against their own nation as it is against the world community. The worst thing that can happen to Israel is that they are successful in this aggression because it will cost them the respect of the world community.

The life of a citizen of Lebanon is just as important as the life of a citizen of Israel.

Israel has chosen not to take their cause to the United Nations and not to ask for the consensus of the world community, and not to lobby the world community for assistance to craft a peace based solution. Israel apparently feels that it is above such rules and that it can do whatever it wants whenever it wants and that it is above international law. But when a nation defies international law they pay a price in the long run because some day Israel will need the world community and we will remember this and take it into account when evaluating if religious states like Israel and Iran are a good idea. Israel is proving that a religious state doesn't work because it allows it's citizens to enjoy the illusion that their people have superior rights to everyone else on the planet.

Israel is not above international law. Like every other nation they have to get a consensus of the world community before going to war.

If the kidnapping of merely two people were justification for a war then is Canada justified in declaring war on Israel for the killing of eight Canadian citizens in their unprovoked war on Lebanon? Why are eight Canadians worth less that two Israelis? Why are two Israelis lives worth more than thousands of citizens of Lebanon? Why are two Israelis lives more valuable that the other Israelis that have died in this conflict? When you consider the price of this aggression it is clear that there is no positive outcome of Israel's actions.

Israel risks widening the war in that other nations might come in on the side of Lebanon. In a world where there are already too many people trying to start World War 3, Israel's act is a crime against all people and it's attack is essentially a terrorist threat against every other country in the region. Israel is also alienating the sane peace-loving Jewish community and Israel's act of war is splitting Judaism into two camps that are at odds with each other. In this case the Israeli Jews are on the wrong side of justice.

There is nothing special about the nation of Israel. When Israel is wrong it is no different than is any other nation is wrong.

Israel should be a beacon of peace, not a beacon of war. If a nation would demand of the world that it has a right to exist then it has to respect that other people's of the world have the same rights. There is nothing special about being a Jew or an Israeli and Israel is no different than any other nation on the planet. There is nothing at all that give Israel a superior standing to any other people on the planet and Israel is subject to the same laws as everyone else. Israel is not above scrutiny. When Israel is wrong they are subject to the same condemnation as any other nation that is wrong.

The Church of Reality declares Israel's cause to be unjust and asks members to stop supporting Israel.

Now then, for the above stated reasons, the Church of Reality issues this edict condemning the government of Israel and does hereby declare this war to be an unjust war. The Church of Reality finds that Israel is engaged in an act of terrorism against the population of the nation of Lebanon. We urge the voices of reason in the world to denounce this war and to take whatever steps necessary to stop Israel and to act to build the peace. War does not lead to peace, it leads to more war. These people have been fighting for thousands of years and if the human race is going to evolve forward we need to learn how to build the peace and eliminate the violence and hatred that fuels perpetual war.

Stephen Hawking welcome to Explore Universe

Edict Date 06-24-2006

The world renown scientist Stephen Hawking recently revealed that Pope John Paul II once told scientists they should not study the beginning of the universe because it was the work of God. The Church of Reality's position is the opposite. The Church of Reality encourages the exploration of the beginning of the universe. We want Stephen Hawking to figure out how the universe began. We therefore issue this edict to recognize Stephen Hawking's accomplishments in Theoretical Physics and Cosmology and to bless his work and his contribution to the Tree of Knowledge, and we say to Stephen, go for it dude! Stephen Hawking is a true explorer who will be remembered for his contributions to the exploration of reality.

Besides, if God existed then why not study creation? Perhaps the Pope was afraid of what Stephen Hawking would find? Perhaps the Pope is showing a lack of faith here? We in the Church of Reality are not afraid of the truth.

South Dakota Abortion Law Infringes on Religious Freedom of Realists

Edict Date: 03-03-2006

The decision of the State of South Dakota to ban all abortions puts a substantial burden on the sincerely held beliefs of the Church of Reality which believes that a woman has an absolute right to an early term abortion without any outside restrictions. The right of a woman to control her own reproduction is vital to the advancement of society which is necessary to advance the cause of exploring reality the way it really is.

This law violates several of the Sacred Principles including but not limited to, the Principle of Freedom, Principle of Privacy, Principle of Positive Evolution, Principle of Inclusiveness, Principle of Compassion, Principle of Environmentalism, Principle of Personal Responsibility and the Principle of Wisdom. We cannot grow as a society where the government can command our women to bear children against their will. We are a fiercely independent and individualistic religion that places great sanctity on the value of personal choice which includes one of the most personal of all decisions, the decision of bearing children.

For thousands of years women have suffered persecution as second class beings and have been forced into a state of oppression based on religious doctrine. The Church of Reality takes the position that the human race will be far better off by helping women become fully equal in status to men. In order to accomplish sexual equality women need to be empowered. We hold that the rights of women have intrinsic value and that society is diminished when women are denied the ability to make their own life decisions and to control their own destiny.

We in the Church of Reality recognize that overpopulation of the planet is a serious threat to the integrity of human civilization and that overpopulation is worsened when women are compelled to bear children against their will. We hold that overpopulation is a threat to our environment and a threat to the stability of society. We believe that overpopulation is a threat to positive evolution and will lead to war, plagues, and famine.

We reject the notion that pregnancy is God's way of punishing teenage girls for chastity violations.

We believe that a person has the right to control their own lives and make their own choices even if those choices are considered to be clearly wrong choices. We hold that the individual has a sacred right to live the life they choose to live and to enjoy and suffer the consequences of their decisions. We hold these personal decisions to be private and not a matter that requires any justification or explanation to society.

We take the position that a person begins their existence and has the rights of a human being at live birth. We reject that personhood and personal rights begin at conception. We in fact recognize that the two cells that make up a person are alive before conception and that conception is one of many steps necessary to produce a person. It has no more significance than any other necessary step.

We hold that the true purpose of these restrictions on abortion is the furtherance of a religious agenda that is contrary to our religious beliefs and that then members of our church should not be subject to domination by the doctrines of other religions that we don't agree with.

The State of South Dakota wants to force women who are raped to bear the children of their attacker against their will!

In particular, the South Dakota law prohibits all abortions even in cases of rape or incest. Therefore if a father rapes his daughter and impregnates her, she is forced to bear his child under the law. We in the Church of Reality finds this to be repulsive. Not only is the rape victim who would seek an abortion criminalized, but the doctor who provided the abortion would be criminalized as well.

We find the idea of the State forcing women who are raped to bear the children of the rapist to be fundamentally opposite to our standards of right and wrong and to be both morally and religiously offensive. Our belief system requires us to be compassionate towards rape victims and empowering women by giving them the resources to end pregnancies that were caused by a violent attacker. For us to allow the State of South Dakota to deny these women abortion services is to allow government cruelty towards the female members of our church. Realists have a religious duty to protect women from state sponsored oppression.

Pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and consistent with the Supreme Court decision upholding the right to religious freedom, I Marc Perkel, as the highest authority of Church of Reality law do hereby declare and decree by edict the following:

That the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion is an intrinsic right recognized by Church of Reality doctrine.

That the Church of Reality finds that the South Dakota Abortion Ban is repulsive, barbaric, unethical, irresponsible, and immoral.

That this law infringes upon our freedom of religion under the First Amendment and places a substantial burden on our sincerely held religious belief in the right of women to choose to have abortions.

That this law is a thinly veiled attempt by other religions to exercise religious domination by using the power of the state to further their religious cause at the expense of our First Amendment right to free exercise of our religious beliefs.

That the law criminalizes abortion providers preventing them from providing abortions services to Realists cutting off our female members' ability to legally obtain an abortion.

That it is our position that the State of South Dakota has no compelling government interest in prohibiting abortions and therefore, pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the rights of Realists to get abortions in South Dakota take precedent over South Dakota law.

We therefore demand that the State of South Dakota make provisions in their law enforcement system to allow members of the Church of Reality to legally obtain abortions and to provide doctors and other health care professionals immunity from prosecution for providing abortion services to Realists.

We are not Afraid of Cartoons

Edict Date: 02-14-2006

Unlike some religions the Church of Reality isn't afraid of a little humor. We aren't afraid of someone being critical of what we believe in. We don't turn violent over mere words or symbols. This cartoon was chosen because it is offensive. I didn't pick this one because I liked it but because I didn't like it. It represent how many religions really view Realists and what they think is going to happen to us in the after life.

Muslim violence is fundamentally wrong. I say to Muslims, what is your religion about? Realists believe that you are what you do. What you do reflects what you really believe in. We do not care what you say you are about or what your holy books say. We do not care about the history of your religion. What matters to us is what you do in this life in the here and now. I see violence, burning, anger, murder. That is what you are doing and it's all over some stupid cartoons. It is what you do who defines what you are and after seeing the cartoons I have to say that the behavior of the Muslim world shows the cartoonist had a point. Islam's public face is violent. Your faith is weaker than your anger.

Those of you who claim that Islam is about love and peace I say, show it to me. I say take control of Islam or split off and form your own religion. Show us by your behavior who you are.

The Church of Reality expects no loyalty from its members that would override good judgement. If we do not do what the name of our religion symbolizes then members are to leave this religion and form a new church that really is dedicated to the pursuit of reality the way it really is. We are a religion that is based on the Principle of Wisdom which does not allow us to let anger rule what we do. We do not let ourselves be controlled by the words of others. We contain our emotions and think things through. If someone draws a cartoon about us then we look at that to see if there is something to be learned that we are overlooking. Maybe the Muslim world should look at the cartoons and try to understand why Mohammed is depicted with a bomb on his head. From what I see from the way Muslims are behaving the cartoon makes sense to me.

What you do reflects what you believe in. If you are violent then what you believe in is violence.

The Church of Reality challenges Islam to show wisdom. We challenge you to show the world who you are and what you stand for. We challenge you to show us that you can stop the violence and live in a world as productive members of society. We want to know that you aren't going to go out and start killing people every time someone pisses you off. From what I can tell your behavior is an insult to your God. You look at the news and you tell me, is this what God wants you to do? Is this an example of the way people of God behave? Do you want to stand before God and explain that you represented God in this manner and face his judgement? I would think not.

The civilized world is watching Islam. We are asking ourselves if we want to share community with you. We are asking ourselves if you are safe to be around or are you going to slit our throats while we sleep. We Realist believe in freedom of religion. But that freedom stops when we feel that a group threatens civilization. What we see in the news is worrisome.

Newsflash

The God who Wasn't There is a really great film that I highly recommend. I saw an early screening of it at Stanford and I loved it. It goes into the early history of Christianity to determine if the character Jesus ever actually existed. I was surprised to find that much of the Jesus story was already in fiction for hundreds of years before Jesus was supposedly born. This is a documentary of how the Jesus myth was created and how little today's Christians know about the history of their own religion. Here's a really great Trailer for the movie. (18mb Quicktime format)

Most Atheists like myself have generally believed that the story of Jesus was at least based on some real events, some popular preacher that may have really existed and was later turned into a supernatural figure by his followers. But it is becoming clear to me that Jesus is total fiction and the stories are adapted from the fiction of the time. I recommend this film to everyone. It gives you a LOT to think about.