29 March 2011

Back in the USSA

After forcing Fejio and Daniel Chapter One to stand trial before a rigged FTC tribunal, where the outcome was predetermined, a federal appeals court in Washington looked the other way in the face of the Commission’s blatant violation of the First Amendment’s protections of free speech, association, and religious exercise. The FTC said all of Daniel Chapter One and Fejio’s speech would be restricted in the future to those statements the FTC deemed “scientifically” valid — in other words, whatever speech the FTC’s non-scientist lawyers declared permissible. [Emphasis added.]
In addition to assessing punitive fines against Daniel Chapter One and Fejio for exercising their right to free speech, the FTC also asked the district court for an injunction to censor the defendants’ radio program, Facebook page, Yahoo group, online bulletin board, and to prevent them from even linking to materials deemed illegal by Commission attorneys.
This is the long and winding road which secularism leads to.  The humanist secularist’s efforts to stamp out religion and other “irrationalities” in favor of science (or, more accurately, science fetishism) undeniably leads to ignoring basic human rights.  In this case, it has led to denying people their free speech rights.

This is especially egregious, because “science” cannot say with one hundred percent certainty that the claims made by Daniel Chapter One are incorrect.  This is because, as I have noted before, scientific truth is inherently subjective and in a constant state of flux.  The scientific truths of years gone by are now treated as jokes (anyone remember phlogistons?).  Scientific truths change and shift, and man continues to refine what little understanding of the universe he possesses.  What is to say that DC1 is wrong?  And who is to say that DC1 isn’t ahead of the time?

In sum, science the science fetishism currently on display by the FTC demonstrates just how subversive secular humanism is as a philosophy, and how anti-science the science fetishists are.  That’s what happens when man makes himself to be god. Needless to say, man sucks at the job.

UPDATE: S.M. Oliva makes some important clarifications


  1. Are they a non-profit or what?

  2. From what I can tell, DC1 is a non-profit. Last time I checked, though, congress (and, by extension, the federal government) is prohibited from making any law restricting speech. Thus, any federal restrictions of speech is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. It is also a gross violation of natural rights.