Court Says [s]Creativity Movement[/s] Is Not A "Religion"

[Hidden to Guests]

http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2009/12/court-says-white-supremacist-movement.html

Friday, December 04, 2009

Court Says White Supremacist Movement Is Not A "Religion"

In Conner v. Tilton, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111892 (ND CA, Dec. 2, 2009), in a decision unusually detailed in its analysis for a case brought by a prisoner pro se, a California federal district court held that the White supremacist Creativity Movement is not a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment or RLUIPA. In the case, an inmate sought the right to practice various aspects of his purported religion in Pelican Bay State Prison. In deciding the case, the court relied on the definition of "religion" articulated by the 3rd Circuit in Africa v. Pennsylvania:


First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature; it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching. Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs.
Applying that to Creativity, the court found that Creativity does not deal with fundamental and ultimate questions. Rather, its focus is on "a pragmatic philosophy that Creators must act to ensure the survival and promote the dominance of certain members of society." It is not comprehensive. "[T]he essence of Creativity is confined to 'one question or one moral teaching' which, again, can be summed up by Creativity's Golden Rule: 'What is good for the White Race is the highest virtue; what is bad for the White Race is the ultimate sin.'" Finally, "while plaintiff has presented evidence that shows Creativity has formal and external characteristics that might be considered similar to those associated with more traditional religions, their sole purpose is to support what the Court already has found to be a secular belief system."

Posted by Howard Friedman --PermaLink: 8:50 AM   

Here is the court's decision:

http://www.alliancealert.org/2009/2009120201.pdf

Basically this liberal judge from San Francisco ruled that Creativity is not comprehensive enough to qualify as a religion and ruled it secular, not religious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxine_M._Chesney

Her ruling only applies to prisoners in California under the  RLUIPA legislation.    http://www.rluipa.com/

http://www.rluipa.com/index.php/article/398.html

Full Text of RLUIPA
June 2, 2005

106th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2869

------------
AN ACT

To protect religious liberty, and for other purposes.

My Opinion

The decision of the court is only to be expected when The Creativity Movement define themselves as a Movement when attempting to portray themselves as social activists, and when being honest about themselves, they are seen for what they are: A gang. What few people they do recruit do not become ministers of Creativity, they become gang leaders to promote the group mythos to the detriment of the White race rather than placing themselves in the service of the White race.

There are other aspects to Creativity than the self promotional road that TCM members have taken. TCM are an abomination to our deeply held religious beliefs. That is why they have failed in every aspect of Creativity and this court order is just another nail in their coffin of pretence to anything more than what they actually are: A gang of thugs with their own interests paramount to those of the communal spirit that is Creativity.

Creativity is a religion that is greater than the mere belief in race above all, it is a four dimensional program that includes:

* A sound mind in a sound body: This means that every Creator must keep his mind open to new experiences and be aware that knowledge never stands still. He must remain sane in a world of total insanity. And to do that, he must maintain a religious dedication to his own physical and mental fitness.

* To exist in a sound society: This is the communal aspect of Creativity at work. Creators must strive to help their fellow White man in whatever way they can. They must contribute to society rather than feed off it like the parasitic tic. If in extending a hand to help your fellow White man means living a life of poverty and chastity, then so be it. That is the sacrifice of Creativity.

* To exist in a sound environment: Without a sound environment, nothing else matters. Creators must use their religious zeal to maintain a healthy environment for all, both in the aspects of nature and of the continued evolution of the society in which we find ourselves.

Remember that the end goal of Creativity is to build a Whiter and Brighter world.

If Creativity is found to be defective in that it has become so insular that Creators care more for their own continued existence, than the existence of their fellow White man, then Creativity is by default, bad for the White race and therefore by our own definition, Creativity becomes a sin.

As Creators you have the moral imperative to give until it hurts. For without that spirit of self sacrifice, there can be no Creativity, and the White race is doomed to eventual extinction at the hands of the parasites of planet Earth.

So go forth, multiply and sacrifice all that you must in the true communal spirit that is Creativity, and together we will win this racial holy war.

RAHOWA!

Reverend Cailen Cambeul, P.M.
The Church of Creativity and Creativity Alliance.

[Hidden to Guests]

This was written by someone else. Do not credit me with the text ~ Cailen.


Articles on the legal definition of religion: 

 http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss16/gunn.shtml

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/getting+religion

I am now half way through the court ruling.  What we have here is a lone Creator, acting as his own attorney, trying to make his best case for Creativity as a religion with only a few pages out of The Little White Book.  The defendants (the California prison system) makes the claim that Creativity and Creators  are a White supremacist hate group that promotes violence and hatred for other races and religions trying to mask themselves under the cloak of religion and that it is under the interest of penal safety to deny the plaintiff any access to Creativity materials.

The plantiff is really out of touch with Creativity.  He filed this case in September 2007 stating that he is a member of the WCOTC.    

And yes, the court did touch on the Peterson v. Wilmur Commc'ns Inc. case.  The argument made by the judge as to why that case does not apply in this case is that "the standard applied to determine whether a particular set of beliefs qualifies as a religion for purposes of Title VII...is broader than that applicable in the context of the First Amendment."

Wow!  Imagine that, federal legislation giving us more freedom of religion than the First Admendment of the Constitution itself!   

This is the result of (as I pointed out to some of you in the chatroom last night) the Supreme Court not establishing a definitive test for determining whether a set of beliefs are religious of not in the context of the First Amendment. 

So, how can this judge from San Franciso (jew?) make a legal determination as to whether Creativity is a religion or not under the protection of the First Amendment?   Well, believe it or not, the Third Circuit came up with a "test" that is known as the Africa test (do we really need another reason to thank the niggers?).

The Africa test came about from a decision made in the case of a MOVE adherent (anyone remember that nigger cult in Philadelphia where the police threw a bomb in their building?) in prison suing for a special religious diet.  The Third Circuit threw out the case and identified the three criteria to assist coursts in determining whether a set of beliefs is religious or not. 

"First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and impounderable matters.  Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature, it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching.  Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs."

A side note: The brief mention of the Africa case describes this nigger cult and their similar beliefs in a natural diet and living according to nature's laws.   MOVE was denied being a religion basically because the illeterate niggers in Philadelphia did not have a comprehensive belief system.  If the nigger from MOVE acted in time, he should have been "clicking his teeth" for a few minutes and told the judge that MOVE has yet to fully translate the teachings of their ancient elders. 

Well, I am two thirds of the way through this farce of a ruling.  Again, this lone Creator from the "WCOTC", from what it looks like to me, only had access to a few pages of The Little White Book and did what he could. 

Kind of difficult arguing for one's religion when denied access to your own holy books.  What he really needs is a real reverend of Creativity as a witness.  Some of his claims were dismiss without prejudice.  There was no proof that Scott E. Conner was formally denied the right to get married by a reverend of Creativity and the right to wear religious adornments.  The latter because he could not describe and specific items as religious adornments (ok, some of you put on your thinking caps and come up with an official Creativity religious adornment, can be some kind of medallion, or a unique piece of clothing - please, save the humor, steel-toe boots will not be acceptable).  And the former, because Brother Scott never fully went through the formal process of requesting a marriage within the penal system. 

Poor ruling on the judges' part, but overall, this ruling provides us with the information that we will need to win the next case. 

[Hidden to Guests]

I'll be commenting on this further once I've finished reading the report, however, on one point made:

ok, some of you put on your thinking caps and come up with an official Creativity religious adornment, can be some kind of medallion, or a unique piece of clothing

I suggest that we follow in Klassen's style and adopt a Roman form of dress, at least for Ministers in a formal/religious setting. This could entail a similar uniform as the Roman Catholic vestment, which includes the alb, dalmatic, chasuble and a stole on the outside. We don't need to use all of these but a full uniform for Minister's could involve some, if not all of these garments. Obviously, these would be customised to suit our religion, with the Xian cross replaced by the Signum Album and colours of the garment made more suitable to the creed. Ministers wouldn't be expected to wear these garments at all times, not even at informal Church meetings but at formal occasions which would include weddings, funerals, child pledging ceremonies and perhaps at an annual Church mass.
Note: It should be remembered that the Roman "Catholic" traditions do not belong to Christianity but rather to Rome. We, as Creators, have a right to take these traditions back from the Jewified Catholics and give them back to our White race.

As for the average Creator at a formal event (eg. their own wedding), I suggest a stole (see above) for a man to wear over his tuxedo/suit and for a woman, a white gown with perhaps a modest bridal tiara adorning the Signum Album. These should be deemed sacred religious garments, similar to the yarmulke of the Jew and hijab of the Muslim.

Needless to say, it is not necessary for the Alliance to make a priority of ruling an official uniform for Creators, nor ordering Creators to wear such uniforms but it is a worthwhile idea. Tradition, ritual and religious conformity are beneficial as they increase the sanctity and importance of Creativity in our lives.

I should not have to say this but Creativity must be more than a political belief and cause to Creators. It must be held sacred and with a certain religious zeal, so much more so than a Nazi reveres National Socialism. You must be fanatical about Creativity and practice it not only externally in your activism but deep within yourself, something you meditate upon and feel deep within your subconscious. The saying aloud of the Five Fundamental Beliefs is one part of the religious practice that I'm talking about, one example of how you can make Creativity a religion, more than just a political cause.

That's all from me for now, I'd like to see some comments on what people think of a religious uniform for Creators. If this becomes a worthwhile discussion, I'll make a thread for it.

I'll comment on the legal side of this topic when I have some more to say on the matter.

RAHOWA!

Reverend Scott Harrison.

[Hidden to Guests]

Interesting  Rev. Scott  !

[Hidden to Guests]

perhaps a small tattoo..the size of a five cent piece?..........over the heart.........perhaps........then you will always have your religious symbol "on you"............