Demonic: A+

Ann Coulter’s new book, Demonic, is a must read for those, like myself, who are constantly left scratching their heads or shaking their fists at the irrational behavior of liberals. Drawing from the outlined “mob psychology” in Gustave Le Bon’s book The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind (1896), Coulter details the danger propagated by “group think.” She makes the overwhelming connections between today’s liberals and crowd ideology, and the conclusion is clear: Liberals are the party of the mob. Though you will want to read this entertainingly acerbic book yourself, here is an excerpt that perfectly shows the doublethink liberals unabashedly employ:

A liberal is a person who:

· worships President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who carpet-bombed German cities and executed an American-born spy captured on U.S. soil after a secret military trial- but screams that Bush was guilty of war crimes;

· is crazy about Michael Moore- but against child obesity;

· tapes over the sign that said, “Too Many Jews at Harvard” with a sign that says, “Ethnic Quotas This Way”;

· is enraged with Karl Rove for releasing the name of a CIA paper-pusher (which he didn’t do)- but are copacetic with WikiLeaks putting hundreds of thousands of classified national security documents on the Internet;

· categorically opposes the death penalty for convicted murderers- but venerates it as a “constitutional right” for innocent, unborn babies;

· hysterically opposed taking out Saddam Hussein, a mass murderer who gassed his own people and presided over “rape rooms”- but weepily demands that we intervene in Rwanda for humanitarian reasons;

· claims to be pro-children- but supports the public schools;

· champions women’s and gay rights- but ignores the brutal treatment of women and gays by Muslims;

· same sentence as above, except take out the words “gay” and replace the word “Muslims” with “Bill Clinton”;

· claims it was a vicious slander to be called a communist in the fifties- but didn’t see anything wrong with being a communist in the fifties;

· advocates unfettered scientific research and debate- but then, with no evidence, simply declares discussions about evolution and global warming closed;

· says women should be treated like men- but then demands a vast network of speech laws that assume women are hothouse flowers;

· yelps for clean, alternative energy- but violently opposes nuclear power;

· decries stereotyping- but when a black conservative comes along denounces that person as “unqualified,” “stupid,” a “house nigga,” “an Uncle Tom,” or “window dressing”;

· believes that Tea Partiers are terrorists- but Islamic jihadists are victims;

· as mayor of New York City, closes off streets to traffic, clogs the remaining streets with bike lanes to be “green”- and then takes off in one of his two Gulfstream jets to London.

This welter of contradictions doesn’t even embarrass liberals.

Why? Because they are a mob. (Coulter, 49-50)

You can find Coulter’s book at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, or Borders bookstores.

Works Cited:

Coulter, Ann. Demonic. New York: Crown Publishing Group, June 2011.

PETA: CASTING PEARLS BEFORE SWINE??

Kelly Epperson

Crusading as the great defender of animal rights against human cruelty is the flamboyantly vitriolic PETA. The notorious animal rights organization is known for their militant stance against animal "cruelty" by using tactics that include marching nude behind a banner reading, "I'd rather go nude than wear fur." The good news, though, is that when PETA President Ingrid Newkirk calls you an offensive name referring to a female dog, she really means it as a compliment.

But what is really at the heart of this organization? Is it just an altruistic group of people that have taken their campaigns to the extreme? Or is it a group that seeks to destroy the idea of a righteous God who gave man a soul and dominion over the animals? Examining their own words reveals an unsettling truth.

You know you're in trouble when your founder's hero is Pete Singer, and that's exactly what we find on the PETA website. Newkirk praises his book, Animal Liberation, hailing it as a book that "changed my life." This book, if you aren't familiar with it, argues that animals should be equally considered in moral questions because they have the capacity to suffer. In the mind of the animal liberator, there is no significant moral difference between humans and animals. Any being that has the ability to suffer is worthy of rights. The website goes on to state their belief that "animals are not ours to eat [or] wear" despite what God, and nature, tell us.

There are two dangerous assumptions that have been made, however, by Newkirk and her cohorts. The first is that humans have no soul. The God-given soul is what distinguishes man from beast. The eternal part of our being is what separates us from the animals, and obligates us to respect the sanctity of human life. The second assumption is that "liberating" animals is the best and most humane form of treatment. Consider the deer population. There are approximately 20 million white-tailed deer in the United States, and many areas suffer from overpopulation. This overpopulation causes disease and starvation, not to mention the destruction of crops and auto collisions. The animal rights activists would tell us, like IDA (In Defense of Animals), that if we left them alone, the deer would naturally regulate themselves and go back to a sustainable population. What they fail to give us, though, is any idea of how they would regulate themselves, or any evidence that this has actually been done. Isn't that convenient? Newkirk has suggested that sterilization could be a solution. If we follow her own expressed logic, however, that would mean that we should be able to sterilize humans without their consent for the "good" of humanity. And while we might be grateful that she herself has taken this course of action, that is her choice, and no one else's. If animals are deserving of rights, forced sterilization should be condemned.

Truly, "the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God" (I Corinthians 3:19). These people, in their self-proclaimed wisdom, have made a farce of the dominion that God gave man over the beasts of the field and the fish of the sea (Genesis 1:26). When we destroy the human soul, it inevitably leads to a debasement of the human race and of animals. When we realize the intended order of creation, we can be good stewards of it, rather than elevating it above God.

References: Practical Guide to PETA , Hunting and Overpopulation , PETA

Doing the Hokey Pokey with Libya??

It is not my intention to write a clear, concise article about the U.S. policy towards Libya of late.  That is because the U.S. policy towards Libya is not clear nor concise to me.  As President Barack Obama has articulated, and re-articulated, and articulated the third time, his thinking on the situation, the world has been surprised at his sort of, on-again, off-again, leadership.  The President's advisors cannot tell him what to do on principle because they have no principles in foreign affairs, other than showing American weakness.

There is no doubt they want Qhadaffi, Kadaffi, ... whatever today's spelling is - gone.  When you are  a world leader, however, the entire globe is waiting for your answer to the next question:  "What are you prepared to do about it?"

This is where President Obama freezes.  Those whispering in his ear have suddenly lost their voice.  They are willing to respond to pressure for a no-fly zone.  They do not want to be left enforcing one, without end.  They are willing to drop some bombs but they do not want to drop bombs.  They settle for a sometimes "Yes", sometimes "No", answer to bombing Libya.  In short, they would like to order only a little bit of war, as a side item.

We hear that Libya is not a serious threat to the U.S. with regards to oil supplies.  At the same time, we hear that the Libya crisis will cause oil prices to shoot up to $5.00 gallon this summer.  We are assured that oil is not the reason we are in Libya (unless we will buy that?).

We are exercising military muscle in Libya for humanitarian reasons.  Oh, this one sounds good to the Obama White House!  We will use our might around the globe to end the suffering of humanity.  Obama's advisors think this sounds Carteresque, and they think that is a good thing.  Jimmy Carter was a weak President domestically but he was near traitorous in his foreign policies.  He armed North Korea with nuclear capabilities we now fear coming to fruition.  He betrayed the friendship of the Shah of Iran, ending a reign of the Shah's family of more than 2500 years.  In return, we got the Iran Hostage crisis and instability throughout the Middle East.  He gave away the Panama Canal for all purposes and he gave it away to the Chinese of all people!  Carter had no influence with OPEC as they raised aggressively raised oil prices.  Our most bold and aggressive move in response to all of this was for Americans to wear "WIN" buttons for "Whip Inflation Now."  Our energy policy was to "hunker down" and conserve.  Impersonating Jimmy Carter is the realm of foreign policy is never a good idea.

If humanitarian reasons are our cause for being in Libya, then what about North Korea?  North Koreans have routinely died from starvation and political oppression.  Why do we not go into North Korea?  Why do we not go into the Sudan?  Somalia?  Cuba?  We do not go into all of the places on the globe for humanitarian reasons because we can't afford it - not in troops, not in money, not in political capital.  No, the calls for humanitarianism simply ring hollow.  If we were really serious about humanitarianism, we would send our troops down on the Mexican border and make sure our citizens on the border are not terrorized by the smuggling and drug trades.

Then the news breaks that the Libyan rebels we are helping are often Al-Qaeda operatives.  I wish we would have checked their IDs before we went to war on their behalf on matters that do not concern us.  How can we give the American people a clear strategy when we don't even know the war parties involved?

Our President has an uncertain voice in all things dealing with foreign policy.  That is dangerous for the entire world.  The world looks to the United States foreign policy as a bell weather.  They may hate us, but they want and need to know where we stand.  If our positions are hopelessly muddled, they will find the rest of the world will be less clearly defined.

The thing we have seen consistently from our President and his whispering advisors has been weakness and indecision.  If the polls do not show well on today's position, we will change it tomorrow.  If tomorrow's polls are not good, we will either change to a third position or claim we never left the first one.  We are doing the Hokey Pokey with the tough decisions like Libya.

What should we do globally?  We should cut our missions around the world.  We should stop involving ourselves in every tempest in a teapot.  The Libyans should be left to determine their own fate.  We should bring troops home from Germany, Japan, Iraq, South Korea, Afghanistan, Great Britain, etc.  We have more troops in Germany than we do in Iraq?  Huh?  We do not need to pull out of all of these regions totally, but we need to drastically reduce the size of our military overseas.  We do need to employ our military on our southern border.  We need to cross that border and fight Mexico, if necessary, to stop the rape of our Southwest.

The Founding Fathers saw a prime purpose of government is to provide for the common defense.  It is time the U.S. quits meddling throughout the world and provide for our common defense.  We can be confident in that mission.  We can believe in that mission.  We can understand that mission.  We could know what we are doing and the rest of the world could see it and respect it.  Maybe then, Mr. President, you would not be flip-flopping every day.  If nothing else has sold you yet, it could get you votes!

ALL SPENDING IS DISCRETIONARY!

Bill Pruett

We often lose the debate with liberals by letting them define the terms and we are left counterpunching.  A case in point is the budget battle brewing in Washington.  You know, this is the debate over how much money this generation should steal from future Americans!  The liberals have taken the higher ground in the past by getting reasonable people to accept the idea of "discretionary spending."  Once we accept this misnomer, spending like drunken sailors seems almost responsible.

The argument goes like this:  "Most of the federal budget is spent on entitlement programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and also Defense.  When you add to this the costs of welfare, unemployment, education, homeland security, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc., there is little discretionary spending that Congress can cut."

This is nothing more than a "fig leaf" to hide Congress' unwillingness to dramatically cut spending (or even undramatically cut it!).  When the "ox is in the ditch," all spending is discretionary spending.  We can choose whether or not we continue to have a government so we can certainly choose whether or not that government can spend money.

All federal spending programs must originate in the House of Representatives.  Why?  Because the Founding Fathers wanted to keep the purse strings as close to the people as possible.  The Democratic Party has controlled the House of Representatives almost unfailingly during the last 80 years of irresponsible spending.  The electorate has voted for a change and the Republicans had better get it right this time.

If we talk about "discretionary spending", we miss the elephant in the center of the room.  All spending is discretionary spending.  We must not start with where we are and try to chip away small amounts here and there.  We must start with a zero budget and add only what is absolutely necessary.  Our Founding Fathers referred to this as "limited government."  We must look at the limited purposes of government and fund it accordingly.  We can only do this by starting back at zero.  Each department and each agency must justify their existence or they must be eliminated completely.  Businesses and households face these kind of choices every day and make the hard decisions.  We must demand no less from our elected officials.

The choice is not to eliminate line items but rather departments and agencies. This nation was founded on principles of limited government and freedom of the individual.  The individual should be free to enjoy the fruits of his own labor.  This is a natural right endowed on us by our Creator.  Government should be limited to keep that God-given right intact.  If there are no limits on government, there is no freedom for the individual!

The problem is not just a financial one.  Far from it!  The repercussions will cost our future citizens their freedom.  There will be an inevitable moral decline as we continue to spend someone else's money.  This will continue our advance down the road from our existing Socialism to Communism.  If you think "existing Socialism" is too harsh, name one major industry in this country that is not over-regulated by the Federal government.  It would take a Socialist government to effectively nationalize healthcare.  Only a Socialist government could presume to tell free citizens how much water can flush in their toilets and what kind of light bulb must be used in their homes.

The question is simply this, "Would we rather waste trillions on our own generation and jeopardize the freedom of our children and grandchildren, or would we rather act responsibly and leave our descendants a great country?"  Given that choice, all spending is discretionary and no one is "entitled" to my children's heritage!

SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM – ASK THE SIMPLE QUESTIONS!

Bill Pruett

It is time for Americans to ask the simple questions on so many fronts.  We have bought intellectuals’ verbosity as truth and wisdom because they were Europeans, Ivy Leaguers, or children of the sixties [That sounds like Strike One, Two, Three to me but I digress!].  Today’s liberals/progressives want us to continue down the Red Brick Road to Socialism and Communism.  The purpose of this article is to ask ourselves why should we continue to follow the liberals toward a Marxist, totalitarian government.


THE TRACK RECORD
Before we would choose a school, accept employment with a company, or invest in a business, we would be foolish and remiss not to check their track record.  This is only basic and natural that we would want to know about the past to envision the future.  Let’s take a look at the Twentieth Century and see what track record we find for Socialism and Communism.  Certainly, there were many totalitarian governments in the last 100 years and the following highlights just a few:

TWENTIETH CENTURY TOTALITARIAN REGIMES

THE TRACK RECORD OF SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM

COMMUNIST RUSSIA 62 MILLION DEAD
1917-1987 - Bolsheviks – 9 million

- Stalinist Russia – 53 million

NAZI GERMANY 20 MILLION DEAD
1933-1945


MAOIST CHINA 76 MILLION DEAD
1949-1987


COMMUNIST KOREA 6 MILLION DEAD
1948-1987 - Korean War – 3 million

- Starvation, prison camps and  

genocide – 3 million


SECOND INDOCHINA WAR 4 MILLION DEAD

(Including Vietnam War)
    IN FIVE EXAMPLES - 168 MILLION DEAD !!!



Stop and think about that for one minute.  168 million people died because of Marxism in its various forms and this only includes some of the worst regimes.  That is the equivalent of every man, woman and child in 42 American states today being massacred, killed for political reasons, starved to death, or sent to die in a Marxist-initiated war.

Those numbers are pretty impressive, however you feel about them.  Today’s liberals/progressives/socialists are demanding we become more socialistic every day.  We must ask ourselves simple questions:  


“Why should America sentence its people to the Death Merchants of the last century?”


“If 168 million dead from a few regimes aren’t enough to dissuade us, how many more millions would have had to die to cause us to turn from Marxism?”  “What would be a sufficient death toll to frighten us about the future of our children and grandchildren?”


“Why do Marxist countries usually struggle to feed their people, while their leaders start wars and use their great armies for conquest?”  


“Socialists attack Capitalism as a failed economic system.  Can we name one single Marxist government that can distantly rival the economic growth of United States Capitalism in the last two centuries?”


“Do we regard the U.S. involvement in World War II a mistake as America took down National Socialism in Germany and Fascism in Italy?”


“Do we regard the Cold War as a mistake because we opposed the Communist U.S.S.R?”  


“Why has it fallen to America to fight totalitarian Marxist regimes if they are the good guys, i.e., if they have the proper form of government and we do not?”


“When faced with the eternal choice of “Liberty or Tyranny”, why do Marxist governments always choose Tyranny?”



“Why are people always trying to get out of Marxist countries and into free nations?”


“What Marxist government do you know that guarantees religious freedom for all of its people?”

Marxist governments always choose tyranny because a free people would not allow a dictator to send the men off to war and starve the people at home.  People must be threatened with death to live under those conditions or they have lost all hope.


We, the American people, must speak in terms of liberty and freedom again.  We have not talked about it as much in my lifetime because we have always taken it for granted.  We must actively choose and defend liberty.  Our federal government and its massive bureaucracy have taken far more from our people than any Redcoats ever did.  


Socialism, Communism, Marxism have nothing to offer the people of the world but suffering and death in mass numbers.  The track record is clear.  America, however, is increasingly a Socialistic nation and a nanny state.  When the nanny gets just a little more power, she will become a dictator.  Freedom will not have been lost, it will have been given away!

Planned Parenthood: Racist from its Roots

Kelly Epperson

As taxpayers, we have learned to not be surprised when our tax dollars are frequently used to fund causes we personally oppose. But what if we knew that our money was being used to support the murder of almost 2,000 Black and Hispanic Americans every day? Can you imagine the outrage and protest that would ensue as a result? Oh, wait… our government does fund the killing of minorities, by giving approximately $350 million per year to Planned Parenthood. And where is Al Sharpton? He’s too busy falsely accusing Duke lacrosse players of rape to be bothered with the slaughter of his own people.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is the nation’s leading abortion provider, and its background is controversial at best. A study of the organization’s history and impact reveals its underlying racism. This article does not propose the idea that everyone associated with Planned Parenthood is racist, but it does assert that the institution targets minorities, and the results are devastating.

Planned Parenthood: ITS ROOTS

In 1916, Margaret Sanger opened an illegal birth control clinic in Brooklyn, New York, to provide contraceptives for poor, immigrant women. Shortly thereafter, Sanger began the American Birth Control League, along with The Birth Control Review. In 1920, The Birth Control Review endorsed Lothrop Stoddard’s racist book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy. The publication also frequently featured articles that promoted eugenics, which advocates “improving” the human population genetically, through various means. Eugenics eventually became the ideological foundation for the horrific crimes of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler.

Those who doubt Sanger’s views on eugenics and population control should look no further than Sanger’s own book, The Pivot of Civilization (1922). In this work, Sanger praises eugenicists for identifying the potential danger of “reckless spawning” of the “feeble-minded.” She advocates birth control as a way to allow sexual freedom without burdening society with the procreation of these “unwanted types.” Later, in 1939, Sanger wrote a letter to Charles Gamble that admitted, "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." (emphasis added) Coincidentally, Planned Parenthood omits the emphasized part of this quote in their attempts to justify and explain away Sanger’s radical viewpoints.

Margaret Sanger posed as a woman concerned with the quality of life for the poverty-stricken. In reality, she was a racist who thought that the “unfit” should be kept from breeding through birth control and sterilization.

Planned Parenthood: ITS RESULTS

Regardless of Sanger’s views on sexual freedom and race, it would be unfair to condemn an entire institution based on its founder’s extreme opinions. It is necessary to examine the results of the organization. Sadly, the products of Planned Parenthood do not stand up to much scrutiny. Let’s take a look at the facts:

• Two separate studies found that approximately 60% of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics are located in areas that have a measurably higher black population than the rest of the state. In short, PPFA abortion clinics are targeted in black inner-city neighborhoods.
• African American women have 36% of the abortions performed in the U.S., yet blacks only account for 12.3% of the total population. Hispanic women receive 22% of all U.S. abortions, yet they only make up 12.5% of the total population. Clearly minorities are having far more abortions than whites.
• In 2009, nearly 60% of New York City pregnancies among black women ended in abortion. 41% of pregnancies for Hispanic women ended in abortion. Compare that to only 20% of pregnancies for white women.
• Abortions killed more African Americans as of 2005 than the 7 leading causes of death… combined! It is estimated that around 1,700 African American babies are killed every day in abortion clinics.
• Black women are 3 times more likely to get an abortion than white women.
• As of 2004, nearly 30% of the black population has been lost to abortion. As a result, African Americans are no longer the largest minority group.

Susan Cohen, of the Guttmacher Institute, a PPFA affiliate, claims that the higher number of abortions for blacks is due to the higher number of unintended pregnancies among African American women. Ironically, the same Planned Parenthood that facilitates the abortion also provides birth control services for these same women. Did they mix up the birth control pills with the fertility medicine? Or is it that Planned Parenthood’s preferred answer to unwanted pregnancies has changed from prevention to extermination?

In 1860, four million African Americans were held in slavery. From 1973 to the present, nearly four times as many African Americans have been killed in the abortion clinics.
Dr. Alveda King, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., says it best when she says, “The great irony is that abortion has done what the Klan only dreamed of.”


The statistics and quotes in this article came from the following sources:
http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_and_race/
http://www.cnsnews.com/node/55956#
http://www.alanguttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3002498.html
http://www.itd.nps.gov/cwss/manassas/social/introsoc.htm

Church and State - Gotta Keep 'Em Separated?

Christy Jenkins

What do the phrases ‘separation of church and state’ and ‘power to the people’ have in common? Neither one is mentioned in the Constitution. The difference between the phrases is that society assumes the first phrase is a law, while the second is just a slogan.

Today, this well-known phrase is used every time a religious issue surfaces in government. It’s assumed to be a part of the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence because it’s misrepresented by the media as a law of the land, similar to freedom of speech or the right to vote. Separation of church and state is NOT an amendment, a right, a law, or a statute of our country.

Brief History
There was a Baptist congregation in Danbury, Connecticut, who wrote to President Thomas Jefferson in 1802. They were concerned that a state or national religion would be established, and they would no longer be able to worship God as they wanted. Many had left England due to religious persecution, and they naturally wanted assurances from Jefferson that it wouldn’t happen again. He wrote back to the congregation, assuring them that there was a wall separating the church and the state, and they were in no danger of being persecuted by the government. The phrase was later quoted by the Supreme Court, and over the years it’s become an anthem for those looking to eradicate all mention of religion in a public setting.

[On a side note, can you imagine our President today actually taking the time to respond to concerns from a small Baptist congregation located in a state that’s got only 7 electoral votes? Unless it’s part of a carefully planned publicity stunt on the campaign trail during an election year, you’ll never see the President truly pay attention to the needs of the common man. Lobbyists, billionaires, and celebrities get face time with the powerful people in DC, and middle-class citizens are relegated to receiving scripted speeches written by others, below-par education systems, higher taxes, and increasing unemployment rates.]

The message of Jefferson‘s letter was that the authority of the church and the state should remain separated. The government wasn’t to have authority over churches, and the church wasn’t to have authority over the government - they were each autonomous institutions. In other words, The President of the US doesn’t have authority to order the Presbyterian Church to change their beliefs. Likewise, the Pope doesn’t have the power to impose a property tax on US citizens. Jefferson was reiterating that there would be freedom of religion, but secularists misuse his words now to promote freedom from religion.

Here’s a modern-day, real-life example of the principle Jefferson was referring to – Consider a married couple who is legally separated or divorced. The legal separation means that the wife and husband are now leading separate lives – the wife doesn’t have authority over her husband’s life, and vice versa (i.e., they are autonomous). Does it mean that they can never have any interaction with each other? Not at all. Any divorced couple with children can attest to the fact that their ‘separate’ lives will still overlap – the ‘separation’ means that one no longer has any say-so in the life of the other. It’s the same with the separation of church and state – it doesn’t mean that religion and government must be completely separate with absolutely no overlap. It simply means we can’t use the state to control the church, and we can’t use the church to control the state.

Critics may point out that the letter was penned by President Jefferson, and therefore was a reflection of the government’s stance on religion and the state. That would be a good argument IF the writings of our Founding Fathers (including Thomas Jefferson) didn’t frequently refer to God, a Creator, an Almighty Being, etc. Even official government documents like the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, as well as a majority of state constitutions, openly reference a (gasp!) higher power. These men supported freedom of religion, but still found it appropriate to mention higher powers in federal documents, inaugural speeches, etc. Today, there are people who ignore the countless words of our Founding Fathers and blindly cling to one vague metaphor written by one man to one congregation in one personal letter.

Lesson for Today
Just because a phrase is familiar doesn’t mean it’s factual. If someone presents you with an argument, research it, even if it sounds like they might be right. Our society loves convenience, and being properly informed on an issue isn’t always convenient. The next time someone throws out the phrase ‘separation of church and state’, be sure to question them. Do they really understand the origin and meaning of the phrase, or are they simply repeating what they heard on TV? Watching an episode of ‘Law and Order’ doesn’t make you a lawyer, just like watching CNN doesn’t make you an informed citizen. Instead of relying on arrogant pseudo-intellectuals in the media to tell you what the Constitution says, go to your local library and look it up yourself.

People are always complaining that America has so many problems, and we’re failing as a nation – ignorance is one of the biggest reasons why. This article highlights just one very small example of how being ignorant on an issue can have far-reaching, dire consequences for years to come. We’re in danger of having the mention of God eliminated from our society simply because one well-intentioned, human being took the time to reiterate the concept of freedom of religion in a letter.