Tag Archives: Cenk

The Young Turks Banned Me: The Violent Nature of TYT Army

As I previously wrote, the Young Turks have now banned me from chat on two occasions. Some of you may say this is TYT’s network and they are free to ban anyone they choose. That would be fine if TYT did not define themselves as ardent champions of free speech, expression and democracy who welcome all dissidence, except that promoting illegal or violent activity, on their network (see this video for example). This is a lie which I will expose!  TYT and their “army” freely defame, personally attack, threaten and promote violence against ideological and political outsiders  while dissenters, no matter how well articulated, respectful or justified, are banned.

I never promote or partake in cussing, crime, hate, personal attacks, rudeness, trolling or violence. I am an unrelenting intellectual diligently, logically and fastidiously  investigating, studying and testing the issues, claims and propositions before me so I may assess, discuss and debate them in an erudite manner, supporting or opposing them as available, objective evidence dictates. This evidence, as it stands today, thoroughly debunks and destroys the claims and creed of my liberal, progressive and predominantly atheist opponents.

Being ideologues militantly hostile against anything and anyone that is not congruent with their gospel, my adversaries, unable to intellectually rebut said evidence, merely reject or ignore it by default, and also delusively, fallaciously, personally and even physically attack, oppress, persecute, censor and eliminate not only those who uphold and bring it to the fore but anyone posing a challenge or not blindly yielding to their dogma and agenda.  People like me are feared by those like TYT. They know it is dangerous to allow us to freely speak for we would drown everything for which they stand and struggle in a vat of veracity, forcing them to either join our conservative ranks or soldier on dishonestly, hypocritically and speciously holding and fighting for exposed falsehoods. TYT is content with the latter and thus have banned me from the live chats. I’m not setting up new accounts just to get into chat, especially only to be blocked again the moment I dissent.

Like most of their liberal, progressive and atheist comrades, these individuals emblematize the thin-skinned, anti-intellectual, anti-science, dogmatic, violent fanaticism they vilify and deprecate their ideological opponents for allegedly possessing, vocalizing and actualizing. TYT and their “army,” be it in their videos, posts, tweets, so forth, regularly, with total impunity and without rebuke from their brethren or moderators, assault those with whom they disagree, like me, with vitriolic personal attacks,  lies, sexual innuendos, bloodthirsty fantasies, threats, and also wishes and celebrations of misfortune, tragedy, illness and death befalling them, their families, friends, colleagues, and so forth. For some examples, look at their glee over the deaths of Andrew Breitbart, Antonin Scalia or Nancy Reagan. So cruel, crude, profane, revolting, scatological, violent and vulgar are these utterances, thoughts and festivities that the psychological and emotional well-being of those making, thinking, allowing or partaking in them is brought into question. Perhaps these people suffer from some undiagnosed mental illness, like a psychopathy or psychosis, that require them to be on psychiatric medication, in psychotherapy or in a mental institution.

These screen grabs are examples of the type of filth and violence spewed and endorsed by TYT and its army. None of these users were banned or rebuked by other TYT supporters or moderators.

These come from TYT chat.The first 3 were taken from the chat room itself while the last 2 were taken from the TYT live stream archives that used to be on YouTube.

2012 threats of rape


2012 threats of rape

2012 user insults oreilly2012 kimani insults chaffetz (This refers to Jason Chaffetz and was posted by the same moderator and community ambassador who banned me for challenging TYT’s voter suppression conspiracy, Kimani Wallace David.)

These are a couple of responses I received to a comment I made on a TYT upload.

violence to me re comment on vid

Several violent comments have been left on my YouTube channel as well, including this threat:

violence to me re chan comment
This is not just idle talk or satire on their part but rather exemplifies their real world aspirations. TYT advocate for nothing short of a dictatorship, founded and defended through violence and death if necessary. They unequivocally champion, for example, firing or protesting people, their places of employment, businesses and other organizations with which they affiliate for holding, defending or supporting candidates, propositions or beliefs they oppose, boycotting or suing businesses for not servicing certain events, banning certain political and informational websites, like Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.), and, perhaps most disturbingly, bringing forth the change they desire through violent revolution, using upheaval in France as their inspiration. TYT deleted the video of them endorsing such violence, but it has been uploaded by another Youtuber here, and this video is further analysis of it by HowTheWorldWorks.

It is thus imperative to expose and oppose these vile, violent liars and hypocrites not merely for what they say and do online but more so because of their real-world ambitions and influence. TYT has even set up their own superpac, Wolfpac, and have won the ear of major political figures like Bernie Sanders. TYT and their army bill themselves as a mass political movement  aiming to reshape the real world in their liberal, progressive, mostly atheist, image, which is clearly one cleansed of nonconformists. Despite their contrary claims, with those like TYT, there is no room for freedom, democracy, free thought or dissent but a dictatorship in which group-think, or, at most, democratic centralism, is enforced and dissenters who cannot be “re-educated” are marginalized, dehumanized, silenced, and if necessary, likely physically eliminated. Yes, I am talking genocide. TYT are, after all, inspired by French-style revolution.  Just as TYT peddle democracy, liberty, human/civil rights and free speech so too did the original French revolutionaries talk of “liberty, equality, fraternity;” once the latter took power, they filled the streets with the blood of dissenters and other undesirables. It is also very telling that during their chat, Cenk Uygur never held Sam Harris accountable for the latter’s ongoing advocacy for murdering people based on their beliefs. Then again you should expect nothing more from a company named, despite Mr. Uygur‘s denials, after one of the most evil, violent, genocidal movements in history.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hypocrites The Young Turks Banned Me


This entry answers those asking me why I no longer participate in The Young Turks’ YouTube live stream chat. The short answer is that I have been banned from it since May 15, 2015. This is the second time TYT has banned me for doing exactly what they claim to encourage and allow on their network, as this video makes clear, – civil dissent. My first removal came on November 5, 2012 from their original live stream channel, TYTlive. Then moderator and community ambassador Kimani Wallace David essentially admitted that I was expunged for challenging TYT’s liberal, progressive and atheist dogma, claims and agenda. Although I received no explanation this time, the sequence of events makes it obvious that this same motive applies. These bans thus far only apply to their live stream chats, not their uploaded videos.

(Note: I have provided screen grabs where available and relevant. Unless otherwise noted, these all came from the chat. Some were taken from the live stream and others are from the live stream archives TYT used to have on YouTube, which is why their appearances are different)

During my participation in 2012, I posted my objection to TYT’s conspiracy theory that asserts the GOP aims to suppress voters, especially minorities, by enacting voter identification laws. Kimani promptly blocked me for, in his words, “suggesting that there is no such thing as voter suppression,” and added “YouTube chat is not a democracy.” So much for that dissent TYT claims to encourage and allow.

2012 kimani blocked me for

2012 kimani chat not democracy
The irony is Kimani posted for viewers to let him and TYT know if they are getting facts wrong, which is what I did.

2012 kimani TYT facts

What he obviously meant was for the TYT “army,” that is what TYT call their supporters, to help bolster TYT’s propaganda by linking them some cherry-picked “evidence” and not for people to provide anything that challenges it. All the objective evidence, of course, supports me, for example read these reports 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, which is why I was really barred by him. If TYT are as correct as they claim, then contrary contentions should be easily refuted through evidence they or their representatives can provide that anyone can access and review, and this could be done through a free, open, democratic, civil and intellectual forum where opposing views are welcome and debated. Their chat could be such a place, but instead they have made it a liberal echo chamber. This approach is replicated in other areas of the TYT network by individual users who, taking their queues from the TYT leadership, marginalize, ridicule and block political and ideological outsiders. This is the only way in which these liberals, progressives and atheists can continue to justify their message, beliefs and agenda because they do not stand up to vigorous, emperical scrutiny.

At some point after 2012, the live shows moved to the main TYT channel but the accompanying live chat was left without moderation until early 2015. Though my subsequent banning on May 15 came without explanation, it is obvious that it was executed again for purely ideological and political reasons because it came immediately upon opposing, with civility and scientific veracity, the anti-religious bigotry atheist chatters were, and continue, spouting unfettered. Atheists were claiming religion to be a mental illness. I responded that atheism may be a mental illness, or at least a contributing factor to it, as the evidence shows atheists have higher rates of mental health issues, including depression and suicide. Religion, on the other hand, has been shown to provide the basis for sound mental health. This got me removed while the atheists were free to stay and continue their diatribes. To be fair, a minor degree of refereeing in chat was certainly needed by this point to weed out those spamming and publishing people’s personal information. One alleged case even involved TYT co-host Ana Kasparian’s address and phone number being spammed in chat. This nonsense is unnecessary and should be punished by at least a ban, and some of it perhaps warrants prosecution. However, TYT has taken this opportunity to censor dissent.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Florida Couple Face 15 Years in Prison for Sex on the Beach…or Maybe Not

The Young Turks recently claimed that Jose Caballero, 40, and Elissa Alvarez, 20 have been sentenced to 15 years in prison following their Monday May 4, 2015 convictions on two counts each of lewd and lascivious acts for having sex on a public beach in Bradenton Beach, Florida on July 20, 2014. The TYT “army,” comprised mostly of group-thinking militant liberals and atheists, predictably turned this case into a platform from which to propagandize their paranoid anti-conservative, anti-religion demagoguery and lies. According to them, the penalty is excessive, and it is so because of the domination of Christian-conservative fundamentalism in Florida’s political and legal systems; a fundamentalism so puritanically anti-sex even the most innocuous public exhibitions of sex and sexuality are harshly and unreasonably punished. So extreme is the paranoia, demagoguery and lies exhibited by some of these liberals and atheists that they compare the punishment, and, for some, even the making of public sex illegal itself, to the ideology of terrorist organizations, like the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and fundamentalist, Middle Eastern countries. One TYT fan called the southeastern State, for example, “Saudi Florida.” No justification is provided for these analogies, and there is none that can be offered; they are faulty comparisons merely made either for their emotional appeal or because their originators are delusional and hysterical enough to believe them. If Florida was even remotely close to what they allege, the disgusting public displays of sexual depravity exhibited in the State during events like Spring Break and Gay Pride would not be allowed and transgressors would be severely punished. Notice too that it is only religious terrorists and theocracies that atheists and liberals use as the standard for these juxtapositions, not atheist terrorists, like the Tamil Tigers, or state atheist “utopias,” like China and North Korea, where punishments for the same or lesser offenses are just as harsh or worse. Of course not! To them it is only religion that “poisons everything” and is “the root of all evil” whereas atheism is the realization of Shangri-la. Well one such atheist Promised Land is North Korea, which punishes lewd behavior with a trip to a labor camp with intense work requirements, daily beatings, physical punishments, harsh living conditions, usually “with 300 to 400 people sleeping crowded into one room,” and such a lack of food that inmates feed off such things as rats and grass. At first, however, I too believed the potential punishment for this couple to be excessive for what appears to be a victimless, nonviolent offense that could be handled under public nuisance laws carrying a much lighter sentence, often simply a fine, and thus I began to investigate why they were tried under a stricter statute. As I became aware of the context of the charges, I began to endorse the punishment.

As usual, the Young Turks got their facts wrong, and a quick fact check proved that the couple have not yet been sentenced but that 15 years is only the maximum penalty for these individuals’ indiscretion under the statute under which they were prosecuted. The couple are not facing this punishment because of some ideological or religious domination in Floridian law but because their sex act was witnessed by a 3 year old girl thus making them subject to statute 800.04, which governs the prosecution and punishment of a number of “(l)ewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons less than 16 years of age,” including sexual assault and battery, sexual coercion, sexual molestation and statutory rape. In other words, their offense is covered by a law aiming to protect children, and punish a host of minor and serious sex crimes against or in the presence of them. Perhaps those complaining about the alleged “severity” of the potential penalties are unaware that this is why the maximum sentences are what they are, or maybe they still do not believe such sexual violations and corruption of minors are serious crimes, or crimes at all. Unless, of course, it is committed by religious people and religious authorities. Then they become great crimes to these people; not out of concern for the children, mind you, but because such violations can be exploited to attack religion, religious people and religious institutions. If these liberals and atheists truly want to protect children from sexual crimes, corruption and exploitation then they will want all such malfeasance punished regardless of who or what the culprit is, and they will see this law for what it is – ideologically and religiously neutral. They do not have to support the maximum penalty in this particular case but they must accept that it is being applied solely because it is the applicable statute and not for any ideological or religious motive. It is that simple!

Had a child not been present, these individuals would likely have been tried under a statute carrying lighter penalties, like 877.03, which deals with disorderly conduct and carries a maximum of  “60 days in jail or 6 months of probation, and a $500.00 fine.” Because 800.04 includes such serious transgressions, though, the maximum sentences must be strong enough to punish, and hopefully deter, them effectively. Thus, for those who are convicted but under 18 years of age, the sentence is a minimum prison sentence of 24.5 months and, at the judge’s discretion, a maximum of 5 years in prison, 5 years of sex offender probation and or $5,000 in fines. For those over 18, the maximum punishment is 15 years in prison, 15 years of sex offender probation and/or $10,000 in fines. Unless certain criteria for exemption is met, those convicted must also register as a sex offender. Remember these are maximum penalties that not all crimes will receive. The punishment is to be proportional to the crime. Two consenting adults having sex in public is certainly not as detrimental and serious as other crimes covered by this law, and nobody involved has claimed it to be, and thus violators would normally probably receive a lighter sentence. State Attorney Ed Brodsky explicitly says “It was never our intention to seek 15 years for either of them…That’s not a reasonable sentence.”

In fact, Florida never wanted to prosecute this case and instead offered the defendants plea deals sentencing Caballero’s to prison for 2.5 years and Alvarez to jail for 90 days, and excluding them from the sex offenders registry. Both these deals were rejected by the defendants. Some in the media say that even under these  deals the punishment is worse than that meted out in some fundamentalist Middle Eastern countries. Buzzfeed, for example, argues that Caballero’s deal was “notably more severe than the maximum two-year prison sentence for a similar offense in the United Arab Emirates, where a British couple were sentenced to three months in prison (though deported before serving any time) for indecent behavior on a beach in 2008.” Notice the lack of context in that statement as it doesn’t state that Caballero would have received a longer sentence not because of his sexual indiscretions but because this is his second felony in less than 3 years after being released from prison,  where he had spent 8 years for cocaine trafficking. For this same reason, the State is allegedly now pushing for Caballero to receive the maximum 15 years in prison (although some reports say it not pursuing this sentence); a lesser punishment for Alvarez is being pursued, which may or may not involve jail time. Both will be registered as sex offenders. Funny how these details are ignored by those whining that the couple is being “harshly” punished merely for having public sex because of Florida’s alleged theocracy. The mainstream media has not helped the matter because it has preferred sensationalizing the prospective sentence while omitting or glossing over the context of the case, as I have in this blog.

Public sex is detrimental enough to contribute to the corruption of public morals, to “outrage the sense of public decency” and to “affect the peace and quiet of persons,” all of which are dealt with under statute 877.03. Had a child not witnessed this act, a lesser charge likely would have been pursued by the State. As it is, a child was present and thus prosecution under 800.04 is right! Having rejected the plea deals, which I believe were fair, I fully endorse Caballero receiving the maximum punishment, because he is a repeat offender, and Alvarez receiving jail time and perhaps a fine. These 2 have made their bed and must now lie in it.

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 13, 2015 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Beckie Francis Fired for Pushing Religion/Christianity? Probably Not.

Oakland University fired its women’s basketball coach, Beckie Francis, for allegedly abusing her players emotionally and mentally, obsessing over their weights and eating habits, with some players supposedly developing eating problems, and “pushing” Christianity upon them. Forget the first two reasons, it is the latter one which has raised the ire of liberals and atheists, and is the focal point of their “news” sources, like the Huffington Post and The Young Turks. This is also why these people are usually silent over alleged nonreligious abuses by coaches, like the serial physical and verbal abuse of Bobby Knight; they only care about “abuse” when it is linked with religion. Of course these liberals and atheists are so paranoid, sensitive and zealous that their claims of religion being “pushed” are meaningless.  To them, “pushing” religion can mean simply being Christian, wearing a crucifix or encouraging reading a wide range of material that includes religious texts, or perceived/alleged religious texts.

However, nothing in this case has yet been substantiated. We do not know exactly why Francis was fired. She was coach for over 13 years, never having received a negative comment, discipline or warning. If she had done any of this, especially bringing religion in the classroom, it is more likely than not that she would have at least been brought before a university disciplinary hearing and subsequently reprimanded. Oakland University apparently fears giving Francis & her legal team a confidential version of her termination report that is not redacted, claiming it would allow the complainants to be identified. Nonsense! If this is true, then the system is corrupt because it could allow for any unsubstantiated or manufactured claim  to become the basis for termination, with those terminated never having the opportunity to properly defend themselves or challenge their firing in court. The University is hiding something, & may actually be in contravention of the Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right-to-Know Act.

Regarding that alleged “pushing” of religion on her players, apparently she insisted they “attend church services on trips, showed “Christian-based videos on bus rides” and posted religiously-inspired tweets. Thus, “insisting” now becomes “pushing.” Whom was she “insisting?” Was it all players, or her Christian players, which probably comprise the vast majority of her team.

What are “Christian-based videos?” Movies? Televangelist programs? Sermons? What were the purposes of said videos? Entertainment? Proselytizing? “Christian-based videos” is not the same as “pushing” religion; for example, “It’s a Wonderful Life” is a Christian-based movie but its wider, inspirational message about family, hope, life, overcoming struggles are not limited to religion. Had she shown atheist anti-religious videos, this would not be an issue. You may attack religion, but not defend it. This double standard liberals and atheists believe is enshrined in the First Amendment.

Francis allegedly posted religious tweets, including Isaiah 40:31. How this constitutes “pushing” religion or how this can be a basis for termination are unknown. I am unaware that quoting Scripture outside school on the internet is “pushing” religion or violating the First Amendment. “Pushing,” as used in this case, used to mean “forcing” or “coercion;” in other words, you would have no other choice but to adopt Christianity. Nobody in this case is being forced to believe anything and no law is being enacted by Congress establishing a religion or prohibiting the free expression of any religion. The latter, however, is stealthy being done atheists and activist judges corrupting and applying the First Amendment in their own, unconstitutional image.

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on November 14, 2013 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Political Exploitation of the Arizona Shooting Tragedy by liberals and Other Leftists

Holier than thou Leftists, and I include liberals and Democrats in this general category, assure themselves and anyone that will listen that only they are blessed with a social conscious and care about the well being of “the people” while the other side (conservatives, Republicans, or, more generally, the Right), only care about “its” politically and economically elite base. Do not be fooled! For most, though certainly not all, Leftists, the goal is political ascension and its accompanying benefits (wealth and power), and anything they do and say is just a means to this end. This includes making their fellow man into nothing more than their personal stepping stone. Any sympathy and empathy most Leftists may claim to have for their fellow man is false, and any tears they may shed for him being those of crocodiles. This is a certainty crystallized in cataclysmic times, which the most astute on the Left are ever ready to exploit for their own agenda.

In fact, it seems many of these individuals have a sadistic, ruthless, anthropophagus hunger for catastrophes that present them a smorgasbord of human victims to satisfy their Machiavellian political hunger. One example is Democratic strategist Mark Penn who told Chris Matthews in November 2010 that President Obama needs an Oklahoma City bombing-style event to allow him to reconnect with voters and fight Republican political resurgence. Like cannibals steeping in and gorging on the blood and flesh of their prey, many Leftists dine upon the casualties of calamity to nourish their lust for political prominence. Hence, the apparently automatic reaction to Jared Lee Loughner’s shooting rampage in Tucson, Arizona by many Leftists who, like Penn, see in tragedy the perfect platform from which to provoke opposition against their hated Right-wing, especially conservative, foes, paving the way for electoral victory. In a desperate attempt to rid themselves of the bitterness of their intellectual and political poverty and failure and feed their void for political relevance and power, these Leftists thus immediately began feasting on the barely fallen victims of Loughner’s fury, exploiting and politicizing their deaths by pinning the blame for it on the Right.

More specifically, Leftists have blamed the latter’s rhetoric and imagery, particularly that of prominent conservative talk show hosts, the Tea Party and specific conservatives, like Sarah Palin, defining it as divisive, hateful, extremist and inciting, and thus leading to real, violence against Leftists, especially Democrats, and therefore those who produce it are responsible for any violence against those whom it is directed. This is not only desperate palaver from perfunctory people but also question begging. On one hand, the benchmark by which this communication is defined as such is not set by any objective, universally realized consensus but rather by the Leftists making these allegations, subject to their political motivations, and therefore is not something on which we can base objective truth. These Leftists then, with few exceptions, only hold accountable and chastise their ideological and political opponents for employing this speech and imagery while their use by fellow Leftist comrades receives no such reprimand and may even be at least tacitly or silently endorsed by them. If these Leftists truly care to end such tragedies then they would universally and unequivocally rebuke the use of rhetoric and imagery they believe encourages and/or leads to them; that they do not do this proves their response to such events is a matter of political opportunism rather than genuine concern for the victims and their families and friends and desire to prevent similar catastrophes in the future. On the other hand, and most importantly, not one violent act has ever been successfully attributed, directly or indirectly, to the language or imagery used by anyone on the Right. This link, rather, is simply the fallacious and unproven allegation of those on the Left who then try passing it off as an objective, empirical truth to further their political agenda.

This agenda is rather straight forwards. These Leftists cannot progress their old, tired, failed and rejected political vision through intelligent, intellectual and rational means and thus desperately engage in cold, callous, calculating, cannibalistic, manipulative exploitation of tragedy, including the use of lies, fear mongering, blood libeling, well poisoning and character assassination, to foment and further irrational opposition against those holding contesting beliefs and ideologies. An opposition that, if we follow liberal logic, will only manufacture the same type of violent activity they claim to abhor, condemn and want to end. There are reports now that death threats against Palin has reached unprecedented levels. Perhaps we should blame liberals for their demonization, lies and quote mining of Palin, particularly after the Tucson shooting.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Navy Vet, Dad Craig Scarberry Lost Custody of Kids for Being Agnostic? Probably Not.

Craig Scarberry, 29, of Indiana maintains he lost joint custody of his 3 children because of his agnosticism. As evidence, he cites statements alluding to his irreligious views written by presiding Judge George Pancol which state Scarberry “did not participate in the same religious training as the mother…the father was agnostic…when the father considered himself a Christian, the parties were able to communicate relatively effectively.” Following Scarberry, liberals, atheists and agnostics have quote mined Pancol’s comments, spinning them for their political and what can be seen as nothing short of a fear mongering agenda, insisting not only this man lost custody due to his agnosticism but that this represents religion encroaching upon the fundamental rights and freedoms as established by the First Amendment. These people have used Pancol’s words, in a sense, as a call to arms for all irreligious to unite to fight this supposed encroachment before we become a full-blown theocracy. This is perfectly exemplified by the reaction of the The Young Turks.

Pancol’s statements, however, merely relay the fact of how the couple’s relationship operated cohesively when both shared the same religious perspective. Scarberry claims he and his lawyer have gone through the decision, concluding it was based on religious considerations. Of course his irreligious brethren agree. No where in Pancol’s comments does it state, or even imply, religious considerations are a part of the court’s ruling, and Pancol maintains his decision is based on the children’s best interests. Unless irrefutable contrary evidence surfaces, it is irrational and illogical to assume otherwise.

What those who are assume otherwise, and the irresponsible media which is refusing to clarify the matter, are ignoring is the evidence presented in court pointing to the more probable reason his joint custody has been revoked. As reported by the Herald Bulletin, this evidence, which was used by Judge Pancol in his decision, shows Scarberry to have anger management issues, used “profanity in front of the children” and harassed his ex wife with excessive amounts of text messages. Further, in April, 2010, his ex wife had gotten a restraining order against Scarberry for trying to beset and frighten her at her workplace “with abusive language and profanity” and random and unexpected stops by her home “at different hours of the day and night.” Scarberry claims that evidence has been presented in court which purport to refute these latter allegations; as far as I know, as of now, no evidence of such refutation is available to the public and thus I do not know if his claims are true.

Theoretically, though, even if religious considerations had played a part in this decision, it must be determined whether or not they were the sole or dominant criteria on which the decision is based. So long as they do not dominate the decision making process, religious considerations are allowed in custody cases where contesting parties have competing religious interests, and are a normal part of such cases. If Scarberry had been denied custody due to his agnosticism, the judge would have certainly further denied him the right to teach or expose his children to other religious or irreligious perspectives, as happened in MacLagan v. Klein in North Carolina in 1996. In that case, the father, Klein, a Jew, was awarded full religious authority over the couple’s daughter. The court reasoned that since the child had been raised Jewish from the time she was born, it would cause her harm if she was to be introduced into another religion, that being her mother’s Methodism. Scarberry, though, has no such limitations and is free to teach and expose his children to other religions or philosophies, like agnosticism.

Thus, there is more to the court’s decision than these atheists, agnostics, liberals and the media are admitting, considering, investigating or of which they are even aware; it seems these people are motivated by demagoguery and/or paranoid delusions of encroaching theocracy and thus are solely able to focus on the judge’s comments about Scarberry’s irreligious views, spinning them to fit these motivations by ignoring or rewriting the reality and wider context behind the court’s decision. They are further side stepping the reality of custody battles in America where, for perfectly legitimate reasons, it is normal for religious considerations to be a part of a court’s decision.


Posted by on December 7, 2010 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,