It
is an honor to address the Salt Lake Valley Atheists.
I sincerely appreciate the support you have shown to me
over the past year during my struggles to try to save
myself from the tyranny of the Mormon religious powers
in the state courts of southern Utah. As you probably
already know, the farcical charade of a trial based on
accusations of a "decades long campaign of Hate and
Terror" against residents of Utah is now over and the
verdict is in:
A Jury of my Peers
A jury
of eight god-fearing citizens from Garfield County
unanimously agreed that I should be personally
destroyed for daring to file a civil lawsuit for
assault in a Utah court against a recently retired
State Park Manager Larry Davis, a a state of Utah
P.O.S.T. trained Police officer. The all-Christian
jury, with the capable help of the Mormon Judge, found
that the bad behavior directed towards me by the Mormon
Defendant at a Boulder Town meeting was justifiably
provoked because I allegedly made faces at him and
mouthed words at him.
Further
provocation was justified because I have spoken out on
social and environmental problems while living in their
predominantly Mormon cattle ranching community for more
than 20 years.
Large
photos of signs for my beer store business named
Freedom From Religion were shown at the Five-day trial
in southern Utah.
I was
repeatedly denounced as a person who intentionally
provokes the populace into violating my rights and
deserved what I got. They claim I am a "professional
plaintiff" who creates controversy in order to cash in.
In the minds of my accusers as well as the Judges and
jury of Utah’s Sixth District Court, using the legal
system to fight for my rights has been merely done for
the ulterior purpose of greed.
Worse than Criminal
The jury
decided I should pay the Defendant $75,000 because they
believe I abused the legal process by filing a civil
assault claim in Utah State court. This was $20,000
more than the Defendant claimed it cost him to defend
against my assault claim. But if my simple claim was so
frivolous, why was it not dismissed many years ago and
why was a trial even necessary? The reason it was never
dismissed was because I did have sufficient Probable
Cause and a clear right under state law to file the
assault claim. The essential element to prove Abuse of
Process "requires the willful or intentional abuse of
legal procedures for a wrongful or unlawful object or
ulterior purpose not intended by the law." But how can
legal procedure be violated by simply filing a lawsuit?
The Jury was further instructed that; "the essence of
the cause of action for abuse of process is a
perversion of the process to accomplish some improper
purpose, such as harassment or compelling the victim to
do something which he would not be legally obliged to
do. However, if the process is used for its proper and
intended purpose, the mere fact that it has some other
collateral effect does not constitute abuse of
process." The jury ignored these guidelines and the
judge is evidently planning to do the same if and when
he certifies the verdict.
Abusing the Legal System?
I simply
filed a claim for civil assault that only requires;
"the Defendant, Larry Davis, acted intending to cause
harmful or offensive contact" against me and I was
"thereby put in imminent apprehension of harm or
contact" by his actions. How can using the legal system
to attempt to end threats and intimidation against me
from this powerful public figure and husband of the
Town Clerk be harassment? Mr. Davis admitted he that he
got out of his seat during the public meeting and
angrily came over to confront me. He admits he made
comments about my needing a "bodyguard" and that I "was
a coward hiding behind the skirts of a woman" after
Lynne Mitchell and others intervened. He also pinned me
against some school desks and threatened my life but
denied that part. I had reason to complain about such
behavior in a public meeting to discuss an illegally
operated town building inspection program and
consideration of prayer at town meetings. I should have
a right to attend public meetings and voice my
legitimate concerns without fear of violent threats and
reprisals. This police officer later that night
challenged me to physically fight him outside the
school or at home. He had previously made similar
threats while in uniform and on duty for Utah State
Parks and been reprimanded. He also wrote a very
defamatory letter about me the next morning at 5 AM to
a member of the Town Council that was copied to the
town council.
The Police investigate a
fellow officer
After
having my business signs destroyed the next two weeks
and finding out about the hateful letter Davis wrote, I
asked the police to investigate. The Garfield County
Deputy took statements from myself and three other
witnesses who supported my allegations but then waited
for a month to even question other town council members
after providing them with our statements. Most of the
council refused to comment but two said they didn’t see
anything. Larry Davis and his wife, the Town Clerk were
never even interviewed. The final police report stated;
"No physical assault can be supported by independent
witnesses! However, intimidation may have been present!
This case is closed to further investigation. The
purpose was for both men to hear what their peers
thought about their actions at the Feb. 1,1996 Boulder
Meeting." The report was made six months after the
assault and the Deputy was allowed to determine no
assault occurred based on his assertion that there are
no independent witnesses in Garfield County. If you are
assaulted you can’t act as a witness for yourself. And
others who side with you are not "independent"
witnesses. This is how authorities operate here
especially when the accused is a police officer and
fellow Mormon.
Payback Time
With the
premature counterclaims of "Malicious Prosecution,
Abuse of Process, and Intentional Infliction of Severe
Emotional Distress" being heard at the same time and
trial as the assault claims it basically guaranteed
there would not be a fair trial. My claim could have
been heard in a day of testimony but four years and
four extra days of trial were expended in my efforts to
dismiss these counterclaims against me. The
counterclaims were filed prematurely and go against all
prior case law in Utah that clearly indicate my assault
claim must have already been heard and terminated in
favor of the defendant prior to filing such claims. The
exorbitant jury verdict really had no basis other than
for purposes of bigotry and revenge for speaking out
against religious intolerance in Utah. At trial I was
harshly berated for successfully winning a Federal
Civil Rights verdict and awarded $86,000 against
Boulder Town in 1999. The jury then decided to go one
better by awarding $87,000 on the counterclaim for
"Intentional Infliction of Severe Emotional Distress."
The
instructions to the jury for Intentional Infliction of
Severe Emotional Distress said that all three essential
elements must be met for a verdict against me. It must
be proven that I engaged in conduct "that is considered
outrageous and intolerable in that it offends generally
accepted standards of decency." And that my conduct was
performed "with the purpose of inflicting emotional
distress or that a reasonable person would know that
such conduct would cause emotional distress." And
third, "that severe emotional distress was the direct
result" of my conduct.
It doesn't Pay to complain
to the state
They
claimed that I wrote 32 letters to the State government
over a 12-year time period but that lie was not
supported by the facts. Trial exhibits show that there
were less than fifteen letters, many were merely
requests for basic information on state policy, and on
several other problems I questioned about the state of
Utah. All of the letters were written between 1990 to
1993 and there were no further letters or contacts to
the state about Anasazi Indian State Park or the
defendant after that time. That is well beyond the
four-year statute of limitation but both Judge David L.
Mower who was later removed for bias and the trial
Judge K.L. McIff ignored this. They said that filing
the civil assault claim in state court in 1998 was
included as part of the pattern of harassment so they
linked everything from 1990 to the present day. But how
can filing a civil lawsuit be considered an intolerable
and outrageous act? Simply writing letters about
problems in having Indian remains on public display,
continued excavations of Indian graves, using the park
as a site for a private business without a public bid
process, teaching "spiritual awareness," as well as the
rough treatment I received after questioning park
policy by the staff including another assault incident
by the park manager in front of the town Post Office
cannot constitute harassment. It is the responsibility
of park officials to respond to claims and they had
full opportunity and did so in their 15 reply letters
to me.
The
State Park Manager, Larry Davis officially requested I
put in writing all of my complaints about his park in
his first reply letter to me in 1990. He then attacked
me in the same paragraph by "having an axe to grind
with the park," questioning my motives, and asking what
"credentials" I had to make complaints about state
parks. On April 14, 1992 the state park wrote two
letters about me. The first was a reply to my request
information that flatly refused any information and
referred me to the State Division of History. The other
was an official letter to Division of History warning
them that I had been referred to them. That letter
said; "You can judge for yourself as to the character
of Mr. Hatch. I realize the material is lengthy but I
believe it would be worth your time to review the
letters-everyone needs at least one good laugh a day.
If you have any questions about the letters please
contact Larry Davis or myself. Happy reading!
The worst thing I ever did
I made a
visit to the state Division of History and discovered
this vindictive and defamatory letter so I wrote a
short letter to the State Park Director and complained
on April 20, 1992. In my frustration I ended the letter
by saying; "As I have seen in the past and most
recently, Mr. Davis is not the correct person to lead
Anasazi State Park in efforts to deal with the public
in an equitable and considerate way. He appears to be
too emotionally attached to the old Anasazi State Park
after twenty something years. We need someone to
replace Mr. Davis and stop the continued abuses and
problems that plague Anasazi Park." This was the most
severe thing I ever wrote about Mr. Davis but I believe
I had the right to express this opinion without being
counter-sued six years later for infliction of
emotional distress by this park employee. Mr. Davis
apparently had to answer to his supervisors for such
treatment of me but isn’t that just part of his job?
His job with the state parks was never in jeopardy from
anything I ever wrote or said. But Mormons are
evidently easily hurt by any challenges or questioning
of their personal authority even when working as
government employees. The State Park Director wrote me
a reply and claimed I was harassing his finest employee
and refused to do anything more. Years before my
problems with Mr. Davis, the Garfield County Commission
wrote a strong letter to the state parks that said; "In
our opinion, Mr. Davis constitutes a disruptive
influence in our communities. We would appreciate your
taking steps to see that he is replaced with a ranger
who has a better perspective of his proper role as a
public officer…" but they were never sued for emotional
distress. The Judge refused to allow the jury to hear
about or see this letter when we tried to present it at
the trial.
No Right to Petition the
Government in Utah
It was
agreed by both the defense and the court judge that
there was never any libel, slander, defamation, or
physical threats made by me in any letters or
otherwise. If I had written anything reaching such a
level in these letters to the government you can be
sure you would have heard all about it and I would have
probably been charged criminally ten years ago. We all
have a clear right to write complaints to our publicly
funded institutions without fear of lawsuits by paid
employees for doing so. Especially ten years later. The
jury was instructed that Julian Hatch had a clear
"right to petition his government and/or any public
official for relief and or change and to offer his view
about public policy, the management of any government
office or program, however, complimentary or
uncomplimentary, and the adequacy or inadequacy of the
performance of any government official or employee.
This right enjoys a high level of protection in our
society and may be relied upon even if it results in
harsh criticism or embarrassment of a public official
and/or employee." The jury was required to find
evidence of a pattern of conduct "so vile and
atrocious" that it goes beyond civilized boundaries.
The jury was told they could find no verdict against
me; "unless mental disturbance is so severe that no
reasonable man can endure it and mere insults are not
sufficient." Apparently, they ignored the instructions
on the law and the First Amendment.
Larry
Davis has never made any complaints to the police about
anything I did to him that could cause emotional
distress. He admitted he had been depressed and
suffered from anxiety in the mid 1970’s and 1980’s and
had taken prescription drugs for these problems many
years before my contact with him. While he had regular
doctor’s visits over the past 12 years, nothing is
mentioned about any emotional distress in any of his
medical records. He never saw a psychiatrist for his
alleged emotional distress and was never prescribed any
medication for the reputed mental illness he attributes
to me. There is no basis for his claim and no evidence
to support the jury’s verdict.
Both
jury verdicts are completely unsupported by the facts
and based on revenge and retaliation for winning my
prior Federal verdict against Mrs. Davis and Boulder
Town in 1999. The total award against me is for more
than $162,000 dollars but it might just as well have
been 162 million dollars for all it matters. I was
already financially and emotionally ruined by the six
years of fighting the counter charges and accusations
of a campaign hate and terror lodged against me. My
problems with Boulder Town government continue today
with the damages they have caused to me after adopting
and enforcing a zoning ordinance that the Appeals
Courts later found illegal, arbitrary, and capricious
in February 2001. They zoned my business property as
strictly residential, ignoring prior use-among other
things. I have again been forced to file a new Federal
claim in 2001. I have tried to use the legal system
only after I have been forced to obtain my civil
rights. The jury verdicts and the railroading by the
religiously biased judges are nothing more than
attempts to get back at me for embarrassing the
religious majority in Utah. When law and religion are
mixed together they make an awful combination.
Utah, the Mormon State
For many
people, the outcome of this trial was completely
expected but I was shocked by the mean and vindictive
hatred exhibited by these fine Utah Christians. I guess
I was a bit naïve to think that the southern Utah
judicial system would provide justice and a proper way
to end the persecution I have been forced to endure.
There is little or no separation of Church and State in
Utah and if your beliefs differ from the Mormon Church
you are not going to get a fair or impartial hearing in
this rural part of the state. The word "judicial" means
unbiased and careful consideration of the facts,
arguments, and reasoning to reach a fair decision.
"Justice" means fairness and justification with
sufficient reason to justify a verdict decision. The
treatment I received at the hands of Utah’s Sixth
District Court was anything but just or judicial. When
the courts treat you as prejudicially as the wrongs you
ask them to redress where can we turn? I am again
forced to go to the Court of Appeals where I can only
believe that the higher courts will reverse this case.
The higher courts must do the right thing or risk
setting a very bad precedent for the entire state. If
this outrageous decision, along with my failure to have
the premature and unfounded counterclaims dismissed
were to be affirmed it would certainly lead to an
intolerable situation for the legal system. If anytime
someone files a lawsuit to redress their grievances
they can be immediately counter-sued for abusing the
legal process and have claims for severe emotional
distress heard against them at the same time, people
will no longer attempt to settle their problems in a
civilized way through the courts. In his Closing
Arguments the opposing attorney said that fifty years
ago a person myself would have been harshly taken care
of without need for any legal process. He suggested the
jury treat me as they would have in the old days and it
sounded to me like he was inciting a lynch mob to
action. Apparently, the jury was happy to oblige and
show me the good old boy justice of the Mormon state of
Deseret.
Same old story...
John D.
Lee was singled out and scape-goated for his
involvement in the Mountain Meadows Massacre during the
mid 19th century. He was the only person prosecuted and
executed for this cruel massacre of non-Mormon men,
women, and children in Southern Utah. Before he was
executed, Lee made a confession and statement through
his attorney about how the state of Deseret and Utah
Territory was being operated by the Mormon Church. He
wrote; "It has always been a well understood doctrine
of the Church that it was right and praiseworthy to
kill every person who spoke evil of the Prophet. In
Nauvoo it was the orders from Joseph Smith and his
apostles to beat, wound, and castrate all Gentiles that
the police could take in the act of entering or leaving
a Mormon household under circumstances that led to a
belief that they had been there for immoral purposes. I
knew of several such outrages there. In, Utah it was
the favorite revenge of old, worn-out members of the
Priesthood, who wanted young women sealed to them, and
found that girl preferred some handsome young man. The
old priests generally got the girls, and many a young
man was unsexed for refusing to give up his sweetheart
at the request of an old and failing, but still sensual
apostle or member of the Priesthood."
Lee gave
an illustration of such a situation in Utah where
someone resisted the authority of the Priesthood. Lee
told the story of Bishop Snow who ordered a young man
to go on a mission to some distant locality so
authorities would have no more trouble in forcing a
young woman to marry as they desired but the man
refused the mission call. "It was then decided to call
a meeting of the people who lived true to counsel,
which was to be held in the school-house in Manti, at
which place the man should be present, and dealt with
according to Snow’s will. The meeting was called. The
young man was there, and was again requested, ordered
and threatened, to get him to surrender the young woman
to Snow, but true to his plighted troth, he refused to
consent to give up the girl. The lights were then put
out. An attack was made on the young man. He was
severely beaten, and then tied with his back down on a
bench, when Bishop Snow took a bowie-knife and
performed the operation in a most brutal manner, and
then took the portion severed from his victim and hung
it up in the school-house on a nail, so that it could
be seen by all who visited the house afterwards." At a
later meeting the Bishop used this display to enforce
the power of the Priesthood. Lee described; "When all
had assembled, the old man talked to the people about
their duty to the Church, and their duty to obey
counsel, and the dangers of refusal, and then publicly
called attention to the mangled parts of the young man,
that had been severed from his person, and stated that
the deed had been done to teach the people that the
counsel of the Priesthood must be obeyed. This is only
one instance of many that I might give to show the
danger of refusing to obey counsel in Utah."
Good ol' Religion
While life
has somewhat improved in Utah, my trial jurors are
probably all very proud of their work and will be
pleased to learn how depressed and shattered I have
felt since they provided their not so compassionate
verdict against me. I have now had the opportunity to
experience firsthand their kind of "Christian love." I
can’t but believe they feel like they did their duty to
god and country. I have also been assured by the hate
mail recently sent to me that although the jury verdict
was not nearly as severe as it should have been, Jesus
is still very pleased by the outcome. If their god-man
Jesus really did exist, I guess they’d be rewarded by
heaven for striking down another heathen heretic. And
that is what religion is really all about. Hatred and
persecution against those who choose not to believe in
their gods or self-righteous religious leaders. Such an
unbeliever or person who resists authority cannot be
tolerated by religion or it’s adherents.
Religion
is defined as the belief in supernatural beings called
gods that control the affairs of people and the course
of nature. These supernatural gods are to be obeyed as
creators and rulers of the entire universe. All must
bow to these all knowing and infinitely powerful
beings. In monotheistic religions such as Christianity
there is supposedly only one true god. Mormons, the
dominant majority of citizens in Utah, actually claim
to be able to become gods themselves with their own
planets to rule through eternity so I’m not sure if
they can lay claim to being a monotheistic religion.
But there’s one thing for certain, many of their Mormon
brethren like to play the roles of gods right here on
Earth. Some of these god-like rulers appear in their
roles as appointed Judges, law officers, and elected
officials in the Utah State government and they are
encouraged by their church to act upon their personal
religious beliefs and biases in their official public
capacities.
State and Church
Two
hundred years ago this year, President Thomas Jefferson
wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists enunciating the
concept of "Separation of Church and State" which
guided our country’s founders in creating our
Constitution. Government is supposed to remain neutral
in matters concerning religion but it is a sad
commentary that such separation does not actually exist
in the State of Utah. This past week our Governor
proudly signed a proclamation for a day of prayer on
behalf of all citizens in Utah. No consideration was
given to the surveyed nineteen percent of the
population who are non-religious. The fact that such a
clear violation of separation of church and state such
as this illegal establishment of religion is seen as
routine by our leaders shows how entrenched religion
really is in our government. The fact that our
President routinely signed a similarly timed
proclamation when there are at least 29 million
Americans who openly claim to be non-religious is very
disconcerting. But what could be wrong with official
government sanctioned prayers and prayer proclamations?
When authorities are questioned about such problems
they invariably claim that they are merely affirming
religious diversity. If they did not allow prayers they
claim it would be discriminatory against religious
believers. But that is exactly why the government must
remain neutral. Religious proclamations and officially
approved prayer is not inclusive of those who do not
believe in religion. Choosing to promote religion
causes division and is itself a discriminatory act.
Religious believers say they offer their prayers on
behalf of all citizens so there is nothing wrong but
they do not seem to care enough to even consider the
rights of all citizens to have a government that
represents all the people. When government officials
brazenly push personal religious agendas, their
allegiance to religion incorrectly takes precedence
over any Constitutional duty they have. This year
supporters of religion have used the September 11, 2001
tragedy as reason for prayer in efforts to unite all
Americans. But where was there trusted god on that day?
The perpetrators of the tragedy were not atheists but
religious fanatics themselves. If anything it ought to
be apparent that we need less religion and more
rational and compassionate political efforts in the
world. It appears there has been a religious crusade
and war launched against Islamic countries and
therefore any disbelief in America’s Christian god is
seen as un-American and un-patriotic.
All my life
I
was born in 1954 in the LDS (Latter Day Saint) hospital
in Salt Lake City and while I was born into the bosom
of Mormonism, as an American citizen I supposedly had a
right to be free from religious tyranny. That is what
sets America apart from other nations that base their
governments on divine authority. But apparently,
religiously minded government representatives decided
the very same year I was born to insert the phrase "one
nation under god" into the Pledge of Allegiance. I have
been required to repeat this pledge of allegiance to
religion ad infinitum in classrooms and government
meetings throughout my life. The McCarthyism of the
1950’s "Cold War" with its virulent defamation and
blacklisting of suspected godless communist liberals
conducted by elected officials still continues a half a
century later. I have learned first-hand the effects of
daring to say no to religion. If you won’t repeat the
pledge of allegiance then you are seen as un-American
and open to public persecution. The Congress of the
1950’s also chose to further erase the line of
separation between church and state when they adopted
laws to place religious mottoes the money issued by the
government and pushed religion into our public
institutions. Our government has been promoting
religion beliefs throughout my entire lifetime.
The
motto "In God We Trust" has again become the rallying
cry of many self-righteous religious government
representatives. These officials were elected by the
majority and like the jurors in my recent trial they
believe they can do whatever they choose without regard
to reason or law. They think they can act like gods
because they say "the majority rules" so whatever they
decide must be correct. How do they know that the
majority of citizens are religious? If the majority of
citizens are religious then must everyone else be
forced to pay allegiance to those beliefs? How can
anyone know what the majority of beliefs are in our
nation? Has the government polled the citizens on their
personal beliefs? Will our religiously minded
politicians next require us to register our beliefs
with the government and would anyone really want to
register their personal beliefs or dare to go against
the powerful majority? Politicians will do almost
anything to get elected by the majority of voters so I
wonder just what kind of religious test will they
propose to justify their pandering?
Belief in Nothing
And how
much do people really know or even care about the
concept of god and religion anyway? Some say that this
is a "Christian Nation" but how do they really know it
is not a Buddhist, Muslim, pantheist, or even an
atheist nation? Perhaps the majority of people really
could care less about religion and just try to ignore
religion as much as possible. Maybe most people just go
along with the flow and social activities of our
culture. How could we ever determine whether they are
sincerely devoted to religious belief or just trying to
get along? It is impossible for the government to
determine sincere personal belief so what right do
officials have making any claims about religious
affiliation? The government needs to stay out of the
business of supporting religion or any belief system.
The First Amendment provision for separation provides a
solution to the problem and it simply makes good sense
for all citizens to keep the government neutral in
matters of personal belief. Neutrality merely means not
choosing any side and that the government allows each
of us freedom to believe and open express those
beliefs. What could be wrong with that?
So why
don’t politicians and their appointed judiciary support
allowing citizens to decide for themselves what to
believe? Why have government officials decided to make
assertions based merely on their own personal bias that
we are a religious nation? Official days of prayer,
religious mottos, and oaths of allegiance to a
monotheistic god have now become routine exercises for
our government. This is exactly what founders of our
country such and Jefferson and Madison tried so hard to
avoid with the First Amendment separation of church and
state. Why was it so important to replace the old motto
of "E Pluribus Unum" meaning "of many one" with the
divisive religious phrase "In God We Trust?" And what
does it really mean to say that our country trusts in
god? The intent is clearly meant to force all citizens
to accept monotheistic religion and the belief in god.
These religiously minded government officials just
can’t allow the dangerous concept of freedom of belief
to exist. We are required by law to have confidence in
and rely on a supernatural god.
But if
such a god really existed then what difference would it
make whether we supplicate and prostrate ourselves to
it? Begging or praying to a god that can and will do
whatever it pleases doesn’t really accomplish anything
anyway. The national motto does not say anything about
praying or giving thanks to god just that we trust in
the concept. Trust clearly means giving in to god’s
will but such an act is essentially meaningless to an
infinitely powerful supernatural god. But for the
religious powers and their adherents here on Earth, our
government enacting and promoting this national motto
is very important. Our entire nation submitting to the
belief and control of a monotheistic god is essential
for religious zealots to gain control of our nation.
They can claim divine authority for their efforts
toward exterminating freedom of belief and especially
the open statement of non-belief in America. One thing
most of the different religions can agree on is the
extermination of disbelief in religion. The message of
the national motto and Pledge of Allegiance is that all
good Americans believe in god and those who dissent are
suspect. The bigotry of McCarthyism is alive and well
in America with religious fanaticism in control of our
government.
What
American citizen would dare to openly express that they
do not trust or believe in god? Would a citizen who
expresses such unbelief in god be protected by our
legal system? Why would any government official dare to
be viewed as helping such an infidel? Certainly
politicians place themselves at risk of losing votes
and power if they openly stand up for the rights of
unbelievers after the government itself has given the
stamp of approval to religion. Courage is defined as
"the attitude of facing and dealing with anything
recognized as dangerous, difficult, or painful, instead
of withdrawing from it." Cowardice is the lack of
courage and is an excessive fear of dealing with
dangerous, difficult or painful experiences. It takes
courage to openly dissent about issues supported by
government and other authority. It is difficult and
dangerous to be in the minority especially if the
majority of citizens are religious believers.
Unbelievers must have courage to openly express their
non-belief. The dictionary states that; "Unbelief
implies merely a lack of belief especially in matters
of religion or faith because of insufficient evidence."
Someone who does not believe in theism or religion is
known as an atheist. In a nation that officially
proclaims "In God We Trust" it takes courage to
disbelieve in that god. But disbelief is defined as a
positive refusal to believe an assertion or theory
because one is convinced of its falseness. It would be
dishonest of me to look the other way and not assert my
disbelief in religion. We all have a right to not
believe in god or religion and still be treated as
equal citizens. We have a right to expect judicial
restraint and fair treatment in our governmental legal
process. Unfortunately, as I have found out personally
over the past several years, it takes courage to
withstand the prejudice exhibited by some of our
courts. It has been very painful and it is difficult
for me to believe that the judicial process is fair and
equitable. I hope the Appeals Court will ultimately end
the abuses I have suffered so I can be free.
Faith in the Courts
If
courage is the "quality of being fearless or brave"
then I’m not sure if I have what it takes when it comes
to the lower courts in southern Utah. I don’t feel very
brave and I have learned to fear the courts in southern
Utah for all the pain and suffering they have caused
me. Judges in Utah are appointed by representatives
elected to office by a religious majority and are
retained through political elections so they may be
reluctant to do the right thing when it comes to
citizens who openly dissent from religion. Religious
intolerance and persecution against those who openly do
not agree with a Judge’s personal religious beliefs can
be difficult to overcome. It takes integrity for a
Judge or other government official to not be swayed by
public sentiment to not be seen as soft on dissenters.
Officials may become blinded by their own
self-righteous belief in religion.
Religion
has always been about control and forcing people to
conform to what someone else claims to be the absolute
truth. Those who disagree are often condemned by
religion to eternal torment and suffering for not
believing. Humans have a long history of strife and
infliction of suffering against those who cannot in
good conscience obey and agree with the majority
religious beliefs. We know about the dark ages and the
inquisitions of the past. The word "religare" is the
Latin root word for religion and it literally means,
"to bind back again." People are basically coerced to
conform and are bound over and over again into an
adherence of religious tenets and dogma. Religion is
based on a belief in the supernatural that cannot be
perceived in any rational or sensible way. Only through
the unquestioning belief in faith can religious
adherents believe in a god or supernatural being. Such
faith can be dangerous because there is no rational
basis to know what’s real so any and all fantastic
claims made by believers must be accepted. When it
comes to religious belief there can be no factual basis
only faith. Religious believers cannot allow that what
they believe may not be real or true. To obstinately
and blindly believe in a particular creed or opinion
without any rational basis is known as bigotry. Such
pre-conceived opinions formed without facts can cause
prejudice and overzealous bias. Religions demand they
be tolerated and I have always been prepared to allow
others to believe as they choose. The problem is that
religion refuses to tolerate non-belief.
Tolerating Bigotry
The word
toleration means freedom from bigotry and its usage
comes from 17th Century England when Protestants
dissented from the religious bigotry of that time. Many
religions have their roots in problems they had with
other Religions. Tolerance is a principle that must be
extended in both directions. If it is not then it does
not work. Because religions and their adherents do not
tolerate non-belief, atheists are cursed to eternal
damnation and suffering. Unfortunately, the suffering
is inflicted on unbelievers right here and now in this
life. Believers claim that only they know the absolute
truth and dissenters must be isolated, humiliated, and
destroyed. In Utah, they claim that because the
majority of residents are Mormons then this is a Mormon
state and these are Mormon communities. I merely asked
for my rights to be allowed to have freedom from
religion, freely associate and find others who
similarly do not believe, and the result is I have been
persecuted for it. Religious people who can tolerate my
freedom are too often afraid to openly say so for fear
that they will then be persecuted. The majority rules
and the silent majority just looks the other way.
I am
willing to tolerate religious beliefs but I am no
longer so naïve as to tolerate the bigoted beliefs and
actions fostered by religion. I will no longer tolerate
bigotry and if religion is bigotry then I cannot
tolerate religion. I refuse to tolerate intolerance.
Religion is bigotry and I will no more tolerate bigotry
than I will look the other way while someone is
violently attacked in the public street. I do not hate
my oppressors or think that atheists should hate these
people as they have hated us but neither should we
continue to tolerate such bigotry and hatred directed
at us. I will now more than ever speak out openly to
attempt to end religious intolerance and persecution.
I am
conscious that religious believers will probably claim
reverse bigotry but atheism does not attack religion
when we do not believe in it. Atheism is based in
rational thought and is merely non-belief in religion.
We are attacked routinely by religion for not believing
but our questioning and choosing to not believe is not
bigotry. We can tolerate other citizens choosing to
believe whatever they want but we still have a right to
rationally question those beliefs. Religion is a
conscious choice not something a person is born with.
Atheism is not bigotry. Atheists welcome the rational
discussion and questioning of our non-belief. If Jesus
Christ, a supernatural god, or even a UFO presents
itself in a verifiable way, I will acknowledge its
existence. But until that time comes I can honestly
only believe in what is sensible and real. It is
religion that asks us to believe without any foundation
or evidence. It would be a lot easier for me, given my
present problems with the Utah court system, if I
believed that some supernatural god will right my
wrongs but the courage of an atheist is that we must
deal with difficulties and problems in a rational and
realistic way. It is even more difficult when religious
forces continually work against us and sad that we must
constantly fight against the tyranny even in our own
governmental institutions.
Nothing Fails Like Prayer
Ever
since I was born it seems like I have been forced to
live under the yoke of religion. I have never known a
time when the government has been free from religious
control in Utah. I have been trained in their churches,
public schools, military, and in the school of life but
I still do not believe in religion. I participated
fully in the many religious programs held at my public
schools as a child. Prayers were formally on the
agendas and openly given during the 1960’s as they
continue to do today in Utah. Flag salutes and prayers
have not convinced me to believe in religion or
effectively shut me up. I have spent a good part of my
life trying to believe in one religion or another but I
have yet to find any basis to believe in gods or the
supernatural. Religious believers can continue to
persecute me but they cannot make me believe in
something I do not think is true. They can railroad me
in their courts, kill my pets, threaten, intimidate,
and assault me but they can never force me to believe
in their religion. But apparently, these narrow minded
and intolerant religious believers don’t really care if
I ever sincerely believe in their religion. They only
want me to conform and keep quiet or they will destroy
my life and drive me out of their community. I wish I
had never dared to live in these mean southern Utah
communities but I now have no choice but to have the
courage to carry on and endure their vindictive verdict
until I am allowed an appeal to a reasonable court. The
retribution I have received after court wins in the
past has been disappointing but I will continue to
fight for my right to live free from religious bigotry
and hatred in America.
Religion
is more readily assimilated at a young age and this is
not lost on the Mormons. I remember hearing the stories
of Joseph Smith and his Golden Plates but I honestly
never cared that much whether the story was true or not
when I was so young. I was much more enthralled by
television programs like the Lone Ranger, Roy Rogers
and Dale Evans, Davy Crockett, and just being a kid
than in reading about visions of angels. But my life
was changed when I turned eight years old because that
is the age of accountability in the Mormon Church. I
actually resisted being baptized and held the
authorities off for almost an extra month. But the
Bishop came to my house repeatedly to take me in his
luxury automobile for a ride to get ice cream and use
his powers of persuasion. I didn’t know it then but
playing hard to get can actually pay off, if you like
ice cream. But my resistance was futile and I soon
became an official member of the one and only true
church on Earth, or so they claim. I didn’t realize
then that I had been signed up for time and eternity. I
was soon introduced to working at the Mormon "Welfare
Farm" weeding the onion fields and also into the world
of tithing payments so I could pay them ten percent of
my small family allowance. I still have receipts where
I paid .14, .60, and .26 cents when I was ten years
old. The Mormon Church obviously needs money but the
real point of early baptism is getting the children
trained at an early age to follow orders and pay
tithing so it can be collected throughout the rest of
their lives. Church members actually bring in their W-2
forms and write checks based on their gross earnings to
their church. That’s gross not net! Of course, all this
money is tax-free profit for the church and it doesn’t
even have to be reported to the government. Meanwhile,
the taxpayers of America pay for the community services
to the church’s immense holdings. The Church with its
billions of dollars doesn’t pay taxes but they still
get the fire and police protection and other amenities
offered by our society. What a great deal! You would
think they’d be embarrassed but you don’t see religion
stepping forward to willingly pay their fair share and
ease the burden of the poor citizens stuck with the
bill. They do build lots of expensive church buildings
throughout the world though.
They Call Themselves
Saints
I didn’t
realize why it was so important for the Bishop to get
me baptized until a few years later when I discovered
the truth about certain relations between my mother and
him. My Mom was good to me and I appreciate the time
she spent reading books with me at an early age. She
had always been a faithful member of the Mormon or as
they prefer to be called The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints. My mother participated in leadership
positions with the Daughters of the Utah Pioneers and
the Mormon Relief Society that is an organization just
for women. But in the early 1960’s she began to have
her doubts about the one true church. She had studied
and read the voluminous official "History of the
Church" but those books along with the Fawn Brodie
book: "No Man Knows My History" caused her to question
the inconsistencies and problems in the Mormon
religion. Changes had been continually made in the
history books as well as the Book of Mormon itself. Mom
started asking hard questions of the Bishopric of the
local Ward. The Bishop is the appointed leader of about
150 families or 500 members in a specific locality and
this is known as a Ward. The Bishop has two councilors
and a Ward Clerk who controls and keeps all the
records. Together they are known as the Bishopric.
These men are powerful leaders and they rule over the
individual members of the Ward as well as keeping tabs
on any other non-members living in their realm.
Anything and everything must go through them. The
Bishopric in our Ward in Northern Utah could not or
would not answer the questions from my mother. After
all she was a woman trained to be obedient to men and
shouldn’t be asking hard questions of the Bishopric
anyway. My mother eventually got tired of being treated
badly by these men and she requested they remove her
name from the membership rolls of the church. The only
way you could have your name removed in the Mormon
Church was through the local Bishopric and only if you
were first excommunicated. You can’t merely quit paying
the dues and walk away. They must kick you out.
The
Bishopric then began a long campaign to destroy my
mother in the community. I recall the time when my
father came home from work and began angrily arguing
with Mom because the Bishop had contacted his employer
about her request to leave the church. My father hardly
ever attended church because he sometimes liked to
smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol but he remained a
Mormon all his life. Like most "Jack-Mormons," he
couldn’t recite any scriptures and didn’t know much
about Mormon dogma but he always believed the church
was true. And like many religious people my father was
afraid of death and eternal damnation. They might not
know much about religion but know they know they don’t
want to fry in Hell for not believing. Anyway, my
mother requesting to have her name removed triggered
bitterness in our family, our community, and with the
Bishopric. Forty years ago it was almost unheard of to
demand to get out of the church. Mom was ordered to
attend a "Bishop’s Court of Love" to decide if she
should be ex-communicated or if she wanted to
reconsider, but she refused to attend. They kept trying
to hold the Mormon court but since my Dad wasn’t very
active at the time they didn’t have that much leverage
to force her to attend. Finally they held the court
without her presence and such refusal to attend
warranted an excommunication. Like many people who want
out it didn’t matter to her that she was excommunicated
but the rumors spread quickly through the community
that she must have done some awful things. This
ultimately resulted in a battle for possession of my
young soul by members of the Ward. My mother continued
to send me to regularly attend church and never even
told me anything about her problems with the church.
She knew that in a town consisting of 90 percent
Mormons it was best for me to play the game, go along
with the crowd, and try to fit in.
I got
quite a lot of attention from the neighborhood Mormons
at church. They saw me as the innocent smiling son of
the wicked infidel lady. If people asked her about why
she got excommunicated she would tell them why she no
longer believed in the Mormon Church and religion. Many
people who quit believing in the Mormon Church
eventually quit believing in all religion. At church I
had other kid’s mothers coming and telling me I could
come live with their families so I could escape from my
evil mother. I would try to explain to them that I
loved her and she was a fine mother but they probably
just thought I was afraid of her. I was often asked to
give talks in Sunday school and even at the Ward
Sacrament Meeting at a very young age. The Bishopric
pushed hard to keep me involved but the more pressure
they put on me the more I thought about Mormonism and
how I never really felt a connection to god. It made me
feel unworthy but the more I tried to tell them this
the more they pressured me to participate. I told them
I didn’t know what to say in the talks but they told me
to look at church magazines and basically rehash the
articles. It didn’t feel very good giving talks about
things I really didn’t feel but I tried to please them.
When I faltered in giving some of the talks it didn’t
seem to matter because it was all just meant to pull me
further into the cult and ultimately defeat my mother
who they figured would be unhappy if I grew up to be a
committed Mormon. These small-minded people were just
wrong about my Mom because she was always supportive of
anyone’s beliefs, especially members of our family and
other neighbors in the community. She had confidence in
her own non-belief.
My
mother died in my arms a few years ago and it was very
important for me to help in her final years. She had
severe arthritis and a lot of physical pain. She was
ready to end her suffering and unlike many religious
people, she was not afraid of death. Since our
religiously dominated nation does not accept euthanasia
or encourage the alleviation of suffering, my mom had
no other choice than to starve herself to death over a
period of several weeks. She was not the first or last
person to be forced to do so but it is sad that our
society has such a fear of death and lack of
compassion. Since she was an atheist, my mother
pre-arranged to have her body donated to scientific
study by the University of Utah. She also specified
there would be no funeral because she did not want
religious authorities involved. There was no waste of
resources in a casket, embalming, or burial plot. Some
people were not happy about this but she had courage
and integrity in facing her death.
I had
really wanted to believe in Mormonism and religion but
as hard as I tried I could never get god, Jesus, the
Holy Ghost, Joseph Smith, or any dead prophet to appear
or reply to me even when I fervently prayed. When
things didn’t make sense and I asked questions of my
leaders I was merely told I needed to pray harder. At a
certain point the only important thing was to try not
to disappoint my church leaders. I was interested in
archeology and had traveled extensively but I have
never seen one metal sword, breastplates, gold and
silver coins, chariots, or any evidence of the massive
civilization and wars depicted in the Book of Mormon.
BYU and the church keep trying to alter the geographic
locations of the depictions in the Book of Mormon but
they never pan out. There is not one physical item
exhibiting any evidence that the Book of Mormon story
is true.
Religious Whackos
1 Nephi,
Chapter 18, verse 25 in the Book of Mormon states that
when the Nephites came from Jerusalem they found in
America "beasts of every kind, both the cow and the ox,
and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild
goat." But cows, horses, oxen, and domestic goats all
evolved and were imported to America at a much later
time. Joseph Smith claimed that his book was the most
correct book ever written but here we find obvious
incorrect assertions. You would think with the help of
god he could have gotten it right but that’s the rub,
since it is blatantly wrong the entire book and
religion must not be true. Joseph Smith said if
anything could be found incorrect in his book then the
entire religion would fall. Like my Mom, I had trouble
reconciling these problems.
The
racism against people of color, especially Indians who
the Book of Mormon calls Lamanites still continues and
is evident in the Book of Mormon today. It says "And
the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the
mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a
curse upon them because of their transgression and
their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted
of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and
holy men. And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle
his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same
curse upon his seed." There are many more citations in
the Book of Mormon about this racism but what concerned
me in 1988 was the National Public Radio broadcast
about the sabotage of construction equipment on the
Burr Trail just outside Boulder Town. Garfield County
Commissioner Louise Liston made a statement on the
program that reflected the problems going on with
Indian or so-called Lamanites at Anasazi State Park.
She said that local Mormons were currently being driven
out of the area by environmentalists and when asked if
that wasn’t what Mormons had done to the Indians a
century ago she stated; "Well I really haven’t faced
that as I felt that progress, the way the Indians were
living, theirs wasn’t a way of life that could go
forward. It was kind of a savage and barbaric type of
living and eventually they killed each other off.
Anyhow, they killed off the righteous portion and chose
to live without divine guidance and in a savage way
with human sacrifice and so on, which we believe of
course, cost them their liberty." This public school
teacher and community leader correctly reflected the
racist attitudes of southern Utah Mormons about Native
Americans. There was a lot of impetus to end the
disrespectful practices at the state park and educate
people against such racism.
When I
turned twelve I was inducted into the all white male
Priesthood of the Church. During the 1960’s the Mormon
Church had a lot of problems with its racist position
concerning only white males being eligible to be in the
Priesthood. It was emphasized to me how lucky I was to
be white and to get into the Mormon male club. Some
people now probably don’t think the race issue was a
big deal in the Mormon Church back then but the people
in my Ward were quite racist. I remember church members
who I thought were really good people often making
nasty racial slurs right in Priesthood meetings. I
remember that there was the People’s March on
Washington against poverty that there was plenty of
talk about the "Coons" coming from California across
the interstate freeway on their way to the East. There
was talk about members converging on the nearby freeway
system to turn back the procession. Nothing actually
happened that I know about but there was ugly talk at
church. The Brigham Young University sports teams were
having problems at the time with other teams in the
conference and black players boycotting their games.
Someone actually threw Molotov cocktails onto the
playing floor at BYU one night. It didn’t take too long
for the Mormon Prophet to finally change the racist
policy because Mormons like their sports teams. The
Prophet prayed and said if the Lord didn’t agree with
his decision to allow blacks the priesthood he should
contact him and say so. Since god never objected the
change was made. This is actually how the Mormon
prophet made the decision. I remember there were many
in my Ward that thought they could never accept blacks
but what could they do? They really couldn’t just quit
the church so they had to go with it. Members are
taught to follow what their leaders say.
I still
have the "Goals Card" they gave me to put in my wallet.
The Goals Card was entitled "Sustain Church Leaders"
and it lists the following eight requirements. "Speak
well of local Church leaders at all times, Speak well
of the General Authorities, Accept all callings and
assignments and do my very best, Obey counsel and
instructions given by Church leaders, Do something
special for a local Church leader, Never speak evil of
Church leaders, and Let others know that I respect and
obey Church leaders in my community just as I respect
and obey the General Authorities." Number nine is a
fill in the blank for "My own personal commitment is:"
and I wrote in the blank that I would always let
everyone know that I would always do whatever church
leaders told me to do. I was not a stupid and I knew
what was required by the Mormon Church.
Breaking the Chains
I
finally reached the breaking point at age 16 after I
had become a Priest in the church. It was really cool
at that age to bless the water and the white Wonder
Bread sacrament. That got the attention of the young
women in the Ward but what finally ended it for me was
when they wanted me to go to the Salt Lake Temple to
perform Baptisms for the Dead. This was just too much
for me after I thought about this rather morbid ritual.
I had no confidence in my own belief or faith in the
church but they wanted me to force this religion on
dead people who had no say. I figured if these people
are dead why can’t the god just make them members or
have the angels baptize them? But I guess there is
something about a physical body being dunked in water
that I still don’t understand. And now I wish I would
have participated and gone inside the Salt Lake Temple.
But at the time I took religion seriously and I just
didn’t feel right about such an important thing as
baptism for the dead. When the time to show up for the
baptism of the dead came I made myself scarce and
figured no one would miss me but the leaders came
looking for me right away. I felt hounded, explained my
concerns, and I asked why it was so important for me to
attend but they were demanded I go through with it
anyway. I rebelled about being ordered to do it and
never showed up again.
I was
already serving as a Home Teacher and my assigned
partner was none other than the Ward Clerk and he
started having a really hard time getting me to go
visit the families we were keeping an eye on.
Eventually, after several months of missed visits and
repeatedly having to force me to go, my partner had to
give it up. Because I failed to show up he had to give
up on me. It was all too embarrassing for him to go to
alone and I had flat out told him I would not go
anymore. Because he missed making the visits he was
failing to perform his duty and taking too much heat.
He finally had to get assigned another partner and give
up on me. This man was a decent person and I have felt
guilty ever since but I just couldn’t go through the
motions anymore. I let them all down and it has
affected me ever since. I think I had just wanted to
back off a little but as soon as I quit attending and
performing the duties I lost my friends and was totally
isolated and shunned by members of the Ward. At school
I became just like the other non-Mormon kids I used to
shun as outsiders. I fell in with that crowd pretty
quickly because they were the only kids I could
associate with. I told my mother I refused to go to
church anymore and she didn’t like it but I had made up
my mind. She sternly warned me I would have problems in
this culture for not playing along.
Living in Utah
I moved
to southern Utah after serving in the US Army and later
graduating from college because I love the special
slickrock canyons and wilderness landscape there. After
living in other states and foreign countries I really
didn’t give that much thought to how I would fit in
with the Mormons. Southern Utah is sparsely populated
and I didn’t think I would have to be involved with the
local Mormon Ward even in a small town of 200 people.
If you don’t attend church at the local Ward most
members will have nothing to do with you. This may have
something to do with the rural area but I think it
mostly has to do with the religious tenets. The
Bishop’s Handbook of Instructions makes it clear in the
section on "Worthiness a Prerequisite to Ordination"
when it says "Have no affiliation, in sympathy or
otherwise, with any of the apostate groups or
individuals who are running counter to the accepted
rules and doctrines of the church." Members of the
church can get into trouble if they associate with
heathen infidels unless they are trying to convert
them. The Bible has similar edicts of non-association
with atheists (Corinthians 6:14) and stems debate or
the inclusion of logic into religious discussion. I was
always trained that religion and politics are not
appropriate topics or allowed in polite company.
Similar behavior is seen in religious cults and
converts are supposed to not contact any family or
friends. Prescribing the wearing of special sacred
underwear by the Mormon Church for their active and
faithful members performs a similar cult control
function. What real other reason can be made for such a
strange ritual? Wouldn’t their god protect them even if
they were not wearing the sacred underwear? The
underwear identifies who the brothers and sisters are
and sends a message of non-affiliation to non-members.
After
living in southern Utah for a couple of years the
Mormon Home Teachers came to me and asked me to attend
the local Ward. I told them I had no real interest
although I had been baptized. They said I needed to
begin attending church meetings and if I wouldn’t then
I would be excommunicated. I told them they should go
back to the Bishopric and tell them I really had no
interest in being forced to attend church but didn’t
want any trouble. After more than a year I started
worrying and wondering if I had been excommunicated
because I was being treated badly by the local Mormons.
So I went to the main Church Office building on a visit
to Salt Lake City in 1989 to see just what my status
was. I went into the membership and records office,
showed them my driver’s license and waited. After
watching the young woman come back and check my ID a
few times, I started to get nervous. I finally asked
her what the problem was and she told me that I was not
supposed to be here. So I asked her where I was
supposed to be and she said "In heaven." Apparently,
after years of not attending my old Ward, they decided
to help boost their attendance records by just killing
me off in the records. Information is power and the
Ward Clerk can strong arm members or as in my case kill
them off. I wouldn’t make too much of official records
and the numbers of members in this supposedly fastest
growing church in the world. So many people do not
attend or want to be hassled by the church but they are
counted just the same. I mean if this powerful and only
true church didn’t know if I was dead or not then what
else are they wrong about? Anyway, I really had it made
by already getting into Mormon heaven so I proceeded to
leave. But by then a male priesthood holder had come
out and apologetically handed me a certificate showing
that I was now a member in good standing. He said I
should take it to my local Bishop where I was living so
I could get started again in my church duties. I then
asked "but what if I don’t want to be a member" and
they both looked aghast and very disappointed.
I was
told that I would have to contact the Prophet to be
able to get out of the church so I asked to see him but
they informed me I would have to write a letter. I
wrote a letter and told the prophet the church had been
wrong about my death and probably was wrong about a lot
of other things too. I got a reply warning me of the
"eternal consequences" of my request to have my name
removed from the rolls. I was also referred to the
Bishop of the ward where my parents were living. The
Bishop there refused to let me out unless I attended
the Bishop’s Court where they would excommunicate me
for not believing but I refused to attend. I had to
repeatedly threaten legal action if they wouldn’t just
remove my name. A couple of years later I checked again
at the Church office building and they assured me I was
no longer a member but how can you really know for
sure? And they will probably just baptize me again
after I die. This is a church you just can’t get out of
or stay out of. I had it made at one time when they
listed me as dead and in heaven. But it just goes to
show that sometimes you can ask questions that are
better left alone. At least, since I was listed as
dead, the Boulder Mormon Bishopric and their Ward Clerk
Larry Davis couldn’t put me through a Bishop’s court
and excommunicate me. They probably were really miffed
about that at the time but since they have now
railroaded me through the state court they probably
feel better.
What Now?
I’m not
sure what is going to happen next in my personal ordeal
of trying to live in and enjoy the beautiful sandstone
canyons of southern Utah. A lot is going to depend on
if I am ever allowed to file an appeal of my case and
what the higher courts will do. One thing for sure is
that I have already lived through Hell and it continues
to get worse lately. A couple of weeks after the trial
the Judge certified only a partial verdict. He has
approved of the $87,000 jury verdict on the Intentional
Infliction of Severe Emotional Distress" but has not
certified the Abuse of Process yet. Until he certifies
or dismisses it I cannot even file an appeal. In the
meantime, the judge has apparently signed orders to
take control of any assets I might have. I think that
he and the opposition are working together to abuse the
legal process to force me to do things I would not
legally be bound to do. I also think the judge is
prejudiced and is going to try to put me through as
much trouble and drag things out as long as possible. I
believe Judge McIff knows there is little chance the
Appeals court will uphold any of the trial verdicts so
he wants to delay being overturned as long as possible.
The
religious persecution I continue to suffer under is
almost unbearable and I have basically lost my home and
money at this point. It is going to take courage to go
on living this way but I don’t really have much choice.
I have been threatened with death and I am not afraid
to die but I certainly don’t want to let these bigots
get away with railroading me. I appreciate the moral
support I have received from the good people who are
Mormons, some of the environmental community, animal
and human rights groups, and especially from the
freethinkers and unbelievers in Utah. I don’t want to
let anyone down because if they win against me in this
case it means everyone is vulnerable, at least if you
ever get embroiled in the rural southern Utah court
system. The message from Utah’s Sixth District Court is
that non-Mormons and other dissidents are not welcome
to redress their grievances in the legal system. Anyone
who dares seek justice will instead find retaliation
and personal destruction. Many people are scared after
media broadcast of my case.
Courage is Freedom
It
takes bravery and courage to openly be an atheist and
deal with the religious oppression here in Utah.
Atheists
are courageous because they fearlessly face the reality
that we humans are alone in and there are no
supernatural beings to save us. Morality is a
completely intellectual undertaking and has nothing to
do with religion. Irrational belief and unquestioning
faith are really basically immoral and are not
courageous. Acting morally is just courageously dealing
with issues of our lives in a rational way. Atheists
courageously try to make the most of our one life in
this world without fear or threats of eternal
damnation. We try to do our best and although we may
not be able to change all the problems and suffering
caused by religion in this world, by expressing our
non-belief we can help keep alive the principle of
freedom of belief and statement.
America
should be a bastion of freedom but since religion in
our government has gone mostly unchallenged by the
public for so long, we are now reaping a harvest of
intolerance. God Bless America is little more than
self-righteous and self-serving arrogance that we
should have nothing to do with. We must care about all
people throughout the entire world. Where is the
compassion that religious adherents so fervently claim
as their own special niche? Why are religious believers
so inconsiderate and insecure in their beliefs that
they must deny the rest of us our rights to freedom?
Religion seems to me to be little more than
superstition and bigotry.
There
are no gods, angels, heaven, or hell. There is only the
natural world that sustains and nurtures us all. We can
understand and believe firmly in nature and take pride
in our rationality. The courage of an atheist is to
deal rationally with our world and to live and die with
honesty and integrity. There really is no other choice
for us.
(Please ALLOW
COOKIES if you want to see the books)
A Speech presented
to Utah Atheists
Cowboy terrorist ca. 1959
Thank
you for allowing me to address your
organization, Atheists of Utah at the January
2002 meeting. It is especially nice to be
here at the Salt Lake City Public Library in
this beautiful new meeting room. Over the
years, I have used this library extensively
so it feels good to be among the books that
have provided me solace and refuge from the
isolation of living in Utah. Much of what I
believe about the world is a result of books.
Libraries are bastions of freedom of thought
and belief so I salute all those involved in
library work. It is also an honor for me to
address such intelligent, freethinking people
and I hope I will be worthy of your
attention. Many of you probably already know
as much if not more about religious
persecution and problems with freedom from
religion in Utah than I do. You have shown
incredible courage by openly proclaiming your
choice to not believe in religion. I hope you
will find my story both interesting and
enlightening.
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 offers.
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
Ihave 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” 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. Email me:
hatchforsenate@yahoo.com
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.
Thanks
again,
Julian Dean Hatch
Boulder Men Fight Town For Right to Sell Alcohol The Salt Lake Tribune,12/07/1998
BY
CHRISTOPHER SMITH
BOULDER -- At the top of
a double-downshift grade, along one of the most
scenic highways in America, sits the town that
some locals have nicknamed ``Little Bosnia.'' That's because Boulderites always seem to be
arguing or fighting about something, whether it's
water, land, cows, construction, zoning, religion
or the weather. In the Old West, if these fights
ever escalated beyond carping over the fence,
Judge Colt and his jury of six would settle them.
These days, the 130 or so residents of this
southern Utah community keep their pistols
holstered and, instead, shoot it out in court.
One Boulder court case has wound its way into
federal court and another is before Utah's Supreme
Court. Both deal with one of Utah's hot-button
issues: alcohol and a business's right to sell it,
and a community's right to restrict or prohibit
it:
The Utah Supreme Court is questioning
Utah's time-honored policy of ``local consent''
requiring applicants for state liquor licenses to
first get approval to serve alcohol from their
local city council -- in response to Boulder
innkeeper Mark Austin's suit against the town.
A federal jury will decide this spring if the
property rights of Boulder beer retailer Julian
Hatch were violated by the Town Council when it
refused to grant him a license to sell beer, while
giving licenses to two other stores in town.
Austin and Hatch could be called crusaders at
best, troublemakers at worst. They have elected to
use their own money to fight city hall, and the
state's sometimes imposing, confusing,
antediluvian brace of liquor laws, a
conglomeration of licensing regulations that a
Utah
Supreme Court justice last month
labeled ``schizophrenic.'' And while their cases
were born out of small-town feuds, the decisions
handed down may well change the way communities
around Utah regulate booze. ``While I may be a
crusader, I certainly had no intention of going
this far,'' says Hatch, who has lived in Boulder
since 1981. ``I haven't spent $40,000 on legal
costs over the past four years just to try to get a
beer license that I make 50-cents-a-six-pack on.
This is about basic constitutional freedoms and
justice.''
Austin has spent more than
three years taking his case to serve wine and
cocktails in his upscale Boulder restaurant from
the Town Council to the Supreme Court. He says he
``does not relish'' fighting the state's historic
predisposition against alcohol, fostered by
the
dominant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints religion, which discourages drinking.
`Until Utah is told it is part of America, we must
expect this type of thinking,'' says Austin, owner
of the Boulder Mountain Lodge.
In a hearing on
his case last month, two Utah Supreme Court
justices raised major questions over the state's
63-year-old policy of requiring those seeking a
state license to serve wine and cocktails with
meals in a restaurant to first get written consent
from the local city council. Austin had sued
Boulder for withholding local consent from his
state liquor license application in 1995 after
Town Council member Wulf Barsch declared
``this
place was settled by Mormons who don't believe in
the use of alcohol.''
He lost his case early
this year when 6th District Judge K.L. McIff ruled
that local governments have broad discretion to
prohibit alcohol sales within their borders.
Maybe not, according to Justices Leonard H. Russon
and Christine M. Durham. Noting that Utah's Liquor
Control Act charges the state with licensing and
regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages in a
manner ``which reasonably satisfies public
demand,'' the two Supreme Court judges questioned
how any town could prohibit wine and cocktail
sales while still satisfying public demand.
``Having undertaken regulation of liquor, the
state has embraced and articulated a policy of
enabling availability,'' Justice Durham said
during a Nov. 18 hearing. ``So if you interpret
local consent in such a fashion to permit total
prohibition, that would be construed in such a way
that is inconsistent with the public policy that
underlies the regulation.''Russon
agreed.``The statute states so clearly
what the policy is, when you talk about consent it
has to be read in light of the general overall
policy, which means there is going to be consent
but they cannot withhold it totally,'' he said.
``[A community] may be able to restrict the hours
or days or [move sales] further away from school
grounds or parks or something to do with traffic,
but to read it as an outright power to do away
with a policy the state has clearly articulated
does not seem correct to me.''
The Utah
Supreme Court has yet to rule on Austin's appeal,
and it is almost impossible to gauge the court's
mood from the line of questioning during the brief
oral arguments. However, if the court does declare
that Boulder can merely regulate hours and
locations of liquor sales -- rather than mandate
an outright prohibition -- the impact would be
felt across the state.
Russon went so far as
to speculate that even if a majority of residents
of a Utah community such as Boulder do not want
hard liquor to be for sale to the public, state
law might require the minority be accommodated. ``The statute talks about the rights of
citizens of the state, and the citizens of the
state are not just the citizens of Boulder,'' the
14-year veteran of the Utah bench said.
``Boulder doesn't have a big wall around it;
they are isolated but they do not get to live in
their own little world. They have other people
coming back and forth [through town], and maybe
they don't like that. But the citizens of the
state, there may be those who stop in Boulder for
dinner who want wine with their dinner, and this
statute and policy seems to suggest that ought to
be made available to them.'' Attorneys defending Boulder against Austin's
lawsuit said they ``respectfully disagree'' with
Russon and Durham's interpretation of the state
law, and believe that Utah communities can indeed
go dry if they want. ``The lodge asserts
without any legal support that residents [of Utah]
have a statutory right to drink alcoholic
beverages,'' said defense attorney Larry Jenkins
of Salt Lake City. "`The liquor business is not
one which a person has a natural, inherent,
inalienable, vested or constitutional right to
engage and this is because it is potentially, if
not in fact, a menace or nuisance to the
community.''
Jenkins said that selling a glass
of wine in a Utah restaurant is ``a privilege, not
a right,'' and if a community -- or every
community in the state -- decides to prohibit the
sale of all strong drink, no civil rights are
violated. Jenkins, a non-drinker, even told the
court that if a town goes dry ``it doesn't mean
you can't have liquor with your dinner, it just
means the restaurant can't sell it to you. If you
wanted to bring liquor with you to the restaurant,
you still have that option.'' Actually, you don't.
Utah outlawed ``brown-bagging'' in 1991. ``I don't
think you can do that anymore,'' Durham told
Jenkins. ``So, it is the case in Boulder that you
cannot have alcohol with a meal in a restaurant.''
While Austin's legal battle centers on how
much control local governments have over alcohol
sales,
Hatch's lawsuit in U.S. District Court
focuses on an alcohol retailer's rights if a town
tries to dry up. At the same 1995 Boulder Town
Council meeting where elected officials rejected
Austin's request for local consent, they passed an
ordinance allowing two convenience stores to sell
beer for off-premises consumption. But
Hatch's store, which had been selling beer before
the ordinance, was not among the two. Hatch's
lawsuit claims his property rights were violated
when the town refused to recognize his store's
existence and decreed that two other retailers
would be allowed to continue selling ``light''
beer, with 3.2 percent alcohol.
``Julian did not have a license to sell beer, but
at the time, Boulder did not even have a licensing
ordinance,'' says Hatch's attorney, Budge Call of
Salt Lake City. ``He had a business, a
constitutionally protected property right and he
was entitled to due process before the town took
that away from him.'' If Hatch succeeds
in suing the town for improperly taking away his
beer-retailing livelihood, it could mean other
existing alcohol retailers would sue local Utah
governments that attempt to ``dry up'' their
communities by revoking local consent or passing
ordinances to reduce retail outlets. In court last week, U.S. District Judge
Dale Kimball asked whether there was any chance of
settling Hatch's case against the city and
avoiding the jury trial set for April 5.
``What
the plaintiff wants is a beer license and the town
is not willing to give him that, so that's where
we stand,'' said Karra Porter, the attorney
representing Boulder in the case.
The town has argued that Hatch's store -- dubbed
Freedom From Religion ``BEER.''
He says he has
had a federal tax stamp to retail beer and has
filed sales receipts to show he was doing a
regular business retailing brew before the town
passed the ordinance that closed him down.
Hatch has become somewhat of a pariah in the
community for challenging local convention through
legal action. In one counterclaim against him
filed in 6th District Court, Boulder residents
Larry and Judy Davis -- he runs the local state
park and she is the postmistress and town clerk --
claim Hatch ``has engaged in a campaign of hate
and terror towards the residents of Boulder.''
They contend his lawsuits are a ``perversion of
the process 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.''
Hatch says his
views may seem ``narrow and peculiar'' to
narrow-minded people. To him, he is merely
promoting basic constitutional freedoms. ``What is
going on in the small rural town of Boulder
and communities throughout Utah is the opportunity
for discrimination of the minority, an opportunity
created by the Legislature, carried out by local
officials and put in place by a powerful religious
majority,'' says the descendent of LDSMormon
Pioneers. ``These people don't seem to
understand the fundamental constitutional concept
that freedom of religion is meaningless
without ensuring citizens' rights to have freedom
from religion.''
JUSTICE IN
BOULDER
Salt Lake Tribune Editorial, 04/19/1999
Julian Hatch, with his little store and its
provocative name, Freedom from Religion, may
have been an irritant to Boulder town officials
and even most residents, but this does not give
the town justification to harass or treat him
differently than others. A federal court jury
reached just this conclusion when it recently
awarded Hatch $86,000 after concluding the
Boulder town board violated his civil rights
during a drawn-out battle over the operation
of his store.
Hatch's feud with Boulder
focused on his attempts, since the summer of 1995,
to get business licenses for his store. He claimed
the town unfairly delayed approval of his retail
sales license and wrongfully denied him licenses
to sell beer and offer camping services.
After
a seven-day trial before U.S. District
Judge Dale Kimball, a jury concluded the store had
been in operation and selling beer before the town
adopted ordinances requiring business licenses in
the summer of 1995. Hatch and his attorney
have contended that town leaders had acted out of
animosity to Hatch, while the attorney for Boulder
said the town did not single Hatch out for
harassment but merely wanted to ensure his
business was in compliance with the law.
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. A key principle of
the U.S. Constitution, not to mention the rule of
law, is that all are equal before the law. This
means that no individuals or groups should get
preferential or more odious treatment than their
counterparts.
Utah's other communities and cities,
especially those in which residents like
to brag about being of one mind or
sharing a particular heritage or
system of values, should heed the
message of this trial.
Atheists Fight The Intrusion Of
Religion Monday, January 7, 2002
BY KEVIN CANTERA THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
It never has been easy to be an atheist
in Utah.
In an era when "God bless America" has
become one of the nation's -- and the
state's -- best-loved catch phrases, it
is perhaps harder than ever to express
one's disbelief in all things divine.
That did not deter the 30 or so who
attended Sunday's meeting of Atheists of
Utah at the Sprague Library in Salt Lake
City.
The group, which formed in September to
promote "atheism as a legitimate
lifestyle," is focused on helping Utahns
achieve freedom from religion, said
board member Charles Johnson.
He pleaded for "active participants" to
battle the "intrusion of religion into
our lives." The item currently in the
group's cross hairs is a proposed law
that would require the motto "In God We
Trust" to be posted in every classroom
in every public school in Utah. Proposed
by Rep. Richard Siddoway (R-Bountiful),
House Bill 79 will be discussed at the
state Capitol on Tuesday at a meeting of
the Education Committee.
Johnson urged all atheists to contact
their state legislators to "let them
know that religious worship should not
be promoted in our public schools."
After Johnson's plea, applause greeted
the group's guest speaker Sunday.
Julian Hatch, a self-avowed "skeptic,"
used his speech to rail against the
"persecution and prejudice" of the Utah
Supreme Court, and likened The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the
Taliban.
"If you live in Utah and you're not a
Mormon, you are presumed guilty," Hatch
said.
He also offered his version of the long
legal battle he has waged with Boulder,
the small Garfield County town in
southern Utah where Hatch lives and runs
his business. In 1999, Hatch won $86,000
from a federal jury that had heard his
civil rights complaint against Boulder.
In a seven-day trial before U.S.
District Judge Dale Kimball, the jury
decided that the town violated Hatch's
due process rights by delaying and
denying him licenses to sell beer.
Hatch said Sunday he is still trying to
prove a civil case against a Boulder
official he claims assaulted him during
a town meeting in 1996. Hatch said the
man called him a terrorist in a
countersuit.
"Since being labeled a terrorist, being
called an atheist doesn't seem so bad,"
Hatch said.
Published at
http://web.archive.org/web/20041014202952/www.unbeliever.org/spch12002.htm
Please ALLOW COOKIES if you want to see these books:
Why I Am Not a Christian, and Other
Essays on Religion and
Related Subjects by Bertrand Arthur Russell
"Great book, solid arguments, a challenge to believers. Easy- to-understand logic dominates the work, presenting an almost watertight case against contemporary mythology.
The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation & Commentary
Abdullah Yusuf Ali
(Editor)
Holy Bible: King James Version: Standard Text Edition
Holy Bible on
Compact
Disc
The God Makers
by Ed Decker, Dave Hunt
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.
Pages
by @Com.
This page was updated
12/05/09
Write to The page-keeper
If
courage is the "quality of being fearless or brave"
then I’m not sure if I have what it takes when it comes
to the lower courts in southern Utah. I don’t feel very
brave and I have learned to fear the courts in southern
Utah for all the pain and suffering they have caused
me. Judges in Utah are appointed by representatives
elected to office by a religious majority and are
retained through political elections so they may be
reluctant to do the right thing when it comes to
citizens who openly dissent from religion. Religious
intolerance and persecution against those who openly do
not agree with a Judge’s personal religious beliefs can
be difficult to overcome. It takes integrity for a
Judge or other government official to not be swayed by
public sentiment to not be seen as soft on dissenters.
Officials may become blinded by their own
self-righteous belief in religion.
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 
Hatch has become somewhat of a pariah in the
community for challenging local convention through
legal action. In one counterclaim against him
filed in 6th District Court, Boulder residents
Larry and Judy Davis -- he runs the local state
park and she is the postmistress and town clerk --
claim Hatch ``has engaged in a campaign of hate
and terror towards the residents of Boulder.''
They contend his lawsuits are a ``perversion of
the process 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.'' 
