For the last few days, I have considered the content of this post and how to present it in the most accurate way. My concern has been that in the current political climate, there are those who wish to update or rewrite the U.S. Constitution, as they feel it was written in times wheen the Founding Fathers could not have fathomed the issues facing the country today. I do not agree and proceed with caution. My purpose is not to undermine or hinder in any way the intent of the Founders for the First Amendment and its construction.  

Obama rips U.S. Constitution- Faults Supreme Court for not mandating ‘redistribution of wealth’

Posted: October 27, 2008- 1:46 pm Eastern © 2010 WorldNetDaily Here is a small clip…

“In a newly unearthed tape, Obama is heard telling Chicago’s public station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that “redistributive change” is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.”

(see more here.. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=79225 )

    In order to make my point, let’s consider the US Constitution and the Amendments as a fortress. This fortress is to protect legal citizens from the oppression and tyranny of a Government, out of control and bent on controlling the citizens for the support of a rogue agenda. Inside the fortress, in a perfect world, all citizens would understand the necessity of respecting each other’s freedoms and unalienable rights. There is in a “perfect” state, mutual respect and honor given to each other for the edification of all citizens. Citizens from this fortress would be elected to take positions on the walls and govern others. Certainly, this is a simplistic model for sure.

        Closer to the real world is the understanding that inside the “fort”, motives are not pure and the nature of man leads some to seek advantages over others, in this supposed safe haven. This is why we have courts to mete out justice and keep order in the society that claims freedoms for all. Now, from my pocket copy of the US Constitution, Amendment 1:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

   Our Founding Fathers were well aware of the dangers of allowing for the State to establish a favored or “national” religion. Previous to the establishment of the United States, colonists were taxed to support religion whether they agreed or not. This brought severe opposition. It is clear and agreed that Congress shall not establish a “religion”. Congress shall also not “prohibit the free exercise thereof”. In that statement, members of Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF) and Jane Whaley could make a claim that authorities need not prohibit their “beliefs” or “worship”. In respect for that “freedom of religion” in its purest, most altruistic form, I agree and concur. In this nation, or in this fortress, as it were; we are allowed to carry beliefs without worry from a Federal Government. I also agree that having beliefs that allow for others, to have their own unique beliefs, allows for daily life in this fortress to proceed peacefully. But, closer to the real world: we have those that would take advantage of someone’s “freedom of religion” and advance beliefs that would enslave others in the fort and take away freedoms given to US citizens.

    Let me pose some pointed, but necessary questions.  In an ideal society, the freedom of religion exercised freely, would not hinder other’s rights or freedoms. But, is that the case at WOFF? Do regular members have the full scope of rights and freedoms afforded other US citizens? Is it likely that the Founding Fathers intended to protect the religious freedom of certain folks, so that they could practice a religion that takes freedoms from its “church” members? Jane Whaley and WOFF leadership claim that in order for regular members to “fulfill their call”, “walk with Jesus” enjoy “holy righteous living”, that they must give up the NEXT TWO FREEDOMS listed in the First Amendment after it mentions religious freedom. WOFF members DO NOT HAVE freedom of speech and freedom of press or even access to the press. How ironic is that??!!

     Do any of the readers of this blog believe with certainty, that you are free to practice YOUR “religion” at the expense of the freedoms of others? Does that even make sense?

   Yet, in order to continue as a member of WOFF, you must give up certain freedoms and rights as discussed in the series- “Why Should Others Outside of WOFF Care? Part 1” found here.. https://religiouscultsinfo.com/?p=2038  Does it make sense that Jane Whaley and WOFF could use as a defense that they are practicing their “freedom of religion” when it is clear that the PRACTICE of that religion robs others of their freedoms? In my opinion- NO.

    Who in their right mind could defend “religious practices” that take freedoms and rights from one group of members and yet allow others in that group to enjoy them, any time they chose? This was life at WOFF. There were freedoms that Jane Whaley and certain leadership could enjoy, when others could not. Does this seem right? Should we list these freedoms, yet again?

  In my research, I found the following case information where the decision protected “beliefs” and not the “practices” of a religion that were prohibited by laws of the land. This case is about Mormons wanting to practice polygamy and the laws prohibited it. How pertinent is this to the fiasco with FLDS that is playing out in our nation?

REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

98 U.S. 145

OCTOBER, 1878, Term

     The Court stated that “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.” Read more of this precedent setting case here… http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html  Religious beliefs cannot be regulated per se, but practices which harm others or violate laws can be.

    One argument in the case of polygamy today, is that some women participate willingly. As far from sound reasoning as that may sound, it is true. Should the courts interfere?   However, that does not change the law. And as far from sound reasoning as it sounds, it can be stated that there are some WOFF members who participate “willingly” in the surrender of their rights and freedoms to be a part of the WOFF church. I know because for years, I was one of those “regular members”. It may be hard to fathom, but at WOFF, members are told and come to believe that they are watching all the TV and movies; reading all the newspapers, magazines and books that they want to. They just “don’t want to”. I thought that for years- myself. But, in my opinion, this is a facade or veneer that regular members are forced to put on and wear due to the “cost” of leaving or being put out. I towed the line and repeated the acceptable response because I did not want the consequences. The fear of consequences does modify behavior, but it does not truly change the heart. All the while, I wanted to read certain books and watch the news at times. I lied to myself to give the impression that I agreed, all the time, in order to stay “under the radar”. Are there others at WOFF or was I the only one? Was this truly a “willing” surrender of freedoms?

   In the next post, we will continue to examine possible defenses that WOFF could offer and the validity of such defense claims. Have we found any valid defenses for the practices at WOFF? Why? These same defenses could be offered for other religious mind control groups with the same results. WOFF is not “special” in that regard.

   Please, consume the information on this site responsibly. The author is not a licensed mental health professional and encourages those that need professional help to seek it. The intent of the material is to inform and be a resource. Be sure to tell every member that you know at WOFF about this blog. There are readers at WOFF. Comments are invited from all readers, including present or former members. Polls are not scientific and no private information is gathered.

    Look on the right side of any post for the option to subscribe by email for notifications or RSS feeds notifying of new postings. It is a great feature. Also, find more posts by selecting “Categories”.

      (Please, take time to read the Terms of Use for this personal blog. As mentioned, the information about WOFF is from my memories and recollections as perfect as that may be or not be. ) Scripture references are Amplified Version unless otherwise noted. (Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation ) This is post number 146.