HOWARD CENTER DECRIES WEBSITE URGING CHURCH ARSON

Dr. Allan Carlson, president of the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society, today expressed dismay over a website that urges enemies of faith to burn down houses of worship.

“It’s a sad commentary on the state of the nation, when an anti-religion website openly advocates arson as a weapon against Christians and Jews,” Carlson complained.

The site (www.churcharson.com) says church arson is “one way people get involved with activism to end abusive practices of Judeo-Christian religion.” The site, apparently based in McLean, Virginia, calls Judaism and Christianity “forms of mind control.” The author also looks forward to the day when “the executions of diehard Christians and Jews” will commence.

Says Carlson: “This site isn’t just advocating arson, but murder as well. It’s reminiscent of racist nightriders of the Jim Crow-era and Nazi storm-troopers burning down synagogues on Kristallnacht.”

“A hardcore of militant atheists is getting desperate,” Carlson commented. “Clearly, the anti-religion left is losing the public policy debate. Also, traditional faith is growing, right across the religious spectrum. This website is an infantile burst of anger motivated by rage and frustration.”

Carlson charged that it also reflects an anti-religion ethic promoted by the cultural elite. “With Hollywood depicting Christians as fools, hypocrites or villains – and the news media telling us that evangelicals are anti-democratic fanatics – is it any wonder that a few unstable individuals are taking all of this as a call to violence?” Carlson asked.

The Howard Center urges Virginia’s attorney general to investigate bringing criminal charges for incitement against www.churcharson.com. It asks the Internet provider to close down the site.

“Religious America will not be intimidated,” Carlson pledged. “We will continue to call for a return to those values and virtues that made America great.”

For more information, visit the following websites: www.worldcongress.org, or www.profam.org. Or contact Larry Jacobs at the World Congress of Families (800) 461-3113.

http://www.profam.org/press/thc_pr_040909.htm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
S.R. Prozak
Necrocapitalist
prozak@throne.net

CHURCHARSON.COM REFUTES SUPERNATURALIST LIES

Alexandria, VA (September 28, 2004) - ChurchArson.com, labelled as a "hate site" and "anti-religion site," today refuted the feeble arguments of its enemies by pointing out that they, instead, are the haters.

"God is not provable, yet these people insist that all of us act as if he exists," said site administrator S.R. Prozak. "Even worse, they want to program the rest of us with mind control that insists there is a supernatural realm. This is illogical, but if you don't accept this mental programming, they call you a hater, a criminal and a bigot, as the news articles about ChurchArson.com illustrate."

Put online in the year 2000, the ChurchArson.com site features articles, manifestos and links for those who oppose the religion of Judeo-Christianity.

"It's an error to say we are 'anti-religion' or against spirituality," continued Prozak. "That's not true at all. We are opposed however to these crazy Middle Eastern religions, Christianity and Judaism. There's no mention on the site of Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Shintoism or Animism. These religions don't insist that you are either good or evil in a binary state of mind."

According to many expert psychologists, any system of thought in which there are only two possibilities causes a negative reinforcement loop in the minds of most people. "Look at it this way," said Dr. Howard Fineberg, of Houston, TX. "If someone tells you you're good, that means everyone else is bad. If they don't tell you that you are good, you assume you are bad and you'd better work to be good."

This form of mental control is unacceptable, says Prozak, and he blames it for many of the ills of our society. "People are being coerced every day into doing things that break their spirit, because they fear the label of 'bad' or 'evil' or 'hater.' This isn't a religion -- it's a system of control that uses fear to instill conformity in people, all for these mystical symbols that have no relation to reality. It's anti-reality. These people are haters - they hate reality."

ChurchArson.com continues to maintain that the content on the site is not illegal, and that it is an important awareness raiser about a hidden issue in society. "No one dares mention that Christians and Jews are the ones pushing for 'crusades,' as President Bush called it, in the Middle East. Or that they're the ones who install these with-us-or-against-us punishment oriented programs like the War on Drugs or Internet censorship."

As of this date, there still remains zero scientific or philosophical proof that the supernatural realm described by Christianity and Judaism exists except as a method of control in the minds of its followers. For more information, please read the site materials on www.ChurchArson.com.

LINKS

Orchestrated Arson Campaign Against Christians, Churches
http://www.injesus.com/Groups/ViewMessage.cfm?MessageId=IB006OXO&GroupID=WB0063KN&UCD=bdc

Anti-Religion Site Crosses the Line With Criminal Content
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1284637.html

Shocking Christian/Jew Hating Internet Site
http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID17865%7CCHID118517%7CCIID1858308,00.html

Church Burning and Evil's last strike
http://www.etherzone.com/forum/index.php?action=display;topic=1075.msg12353

Shocking Christian/Jew Hating Internet Site Appears To Advocate Burning Churches
http://www.bushcountry.org/news/columnists/jreynalds/c_090204_jreynalds_burning_churches.htm

Anti-Christian Fundamentalists
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15081

United Jerusalem - - Week in Review -- 9/14/2004
http://www.unitedjerusalem.org/index2.asp?id=489315

HOWARD CENTER DECRIES WEBSITE URGING CHURCH ARSON
http://www.profam.org/press/thc_pr_040909.htm

ChurchArson.com web site draws church ire
http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15060

Anti-Religion Site Crosses Line With Criminal Content
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/142004e.asp

Shocking Hate Internet Site Appears to Advocate Burning Churches
http://christdot.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4000

Hate Site Appears to Advocate Burning Churches
http://www.israelforum.com/board/archive/index.php/t-6836.html

HOWARD CENTER DECRIES WEBSITE URGING CHURCH ARSON
http://catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=19372

Anti-religion site crosses line with criminal content
http://www.opendoorsuk.org.uk/news/news_archives/000543.php

Copyright © 2000-2004 ChurchArson.com

http://www.churcharson.com/press/

Why is Islam not mentioned? I mean, it's an Abrahamic religion.

Why is Islam not mentioned? I mean, it's an Abrahamic religion.

It's a far lesser problem. Islam, if it stays in the middle east, is fine. However, since Judeo-Christians and their egalitarian policies have invited Muslims here, it is an ethnic problem for Indo-Europeans.

Hey neoclassical,

I wanted to ask you: Are you S.R. Prozak? I'm just curious because I've looked over that A.N.U.S. website in your sig line and read some of his writings. They're quite interesting and offer a unique viewpoint, although I can't say I agree with all of the ideas expressed therein.

Although I am basically a religious agnostic, I do believe that morality exists -- not so much as a supernatural, transcendental quantity, but rather as a set of instincts engrained into the human psyche through ages of evolution. In brief, the idea is this: The reason why (nearly all) modern humans automatically feel disgust and outrage when we see or hear of the innocent and weak being victimized by strong opportunists is that our primitive ancestors were more likely to safeguard their own safety against "loose cannons" (i.e., unpredictably aggressive or excessively selfish and rapacious people) in their tribes through collective ostracism or retribution against such aggressors. This would, in turn, put the aggressors in a comparatively less advantageous position in terms of survival and breeding (cooperation aids survival). Those who struck a balance between selfishness and concern for others were more likely to do well in society and have their own needs looked after, thus aiding their chances of successful procreation.

It's my feeling that these "natural moral instincts," if you will, can be purged more or less completely from one's psyche, but I think this is a bad idea. After all, if the above model is correct, then millions of years of evolution has already taught that the ideal mode of survival for a society is one of cooperation and a certain degree of concern for others.

Here's one possible angle: Let's say we have a society that eliminates all of the unfit by humane death. That might seem like the most effecient way to do things, right? But the problem is that such a process actually goes against nature. It's not possible for a gene to "desire" its own destruction; hence, people will instinctively rebel against the destruction of their own kin who might become ill or too enfeebled to work, etc. They will also never get over the fear of their own deaths. Again, these are natural human instincts. By attempting to turn humans into "worker bees" who are willing to instinctively sting and die to protect the greater whole, we would go against nature.

Does all that make sense? It does to me, but I often don't express myself well. Anyway, your comments are appreciated.

Anti-religion Web site tests free speech laws

by TONY HOLT
Sunday staff writer

It is difficult to imagine anyone marvelling at the sorrowful image of a church or temple being reduced to a smoldering pile of ashes. But Vijay Prozak, a McLean-area Web designer, might see it as a small victory.

Prozak said his Web site (www.churcharson.com) uses church burning as a metaphor to illustrate his disdain for Christianity and Judaism. In his mind, if every temple and church is destroyed, many of society's shortcomings would disappear, he added.

"Buring a church or a synagogue is a symbolic act," Prozak said. "Our interest is not the act, but what the symbolism means: total rejection of these supposedly 'peaceful' religions, because they are neurotic and cause rot deep within our souls and society as a whole."

Prozak refused to provide information about the whereabouts of his operation and only answered questions via email. An Internet site listed an address in Tyson's Corner for the site's headquarters, but it was later learned to be the location of a local parcel service store. There was no confirmation about whether Vija Prozak was the Web site administrator's actual name or an alias, although he did admit to using the pseudonym S.R. Prozak. No phone number ever was listed or provided for Prozak. He also declined to identify his co-designers and people who assisted him with the technical aspects of the Web site.

"I realize this doesn't give you much of what you need, but perhaps you can see why we're somewhat cautious here," Prozak said in response to the numerous requests for more information about him and his location. "I don't trust radical religious groups."

Kent Willis, the Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, believed nothing on the site would be deemed illegal, even if it explicitly suggested burning down a place of worship.

"The constitution forbids the government from forbidding anyone from advocating violations of the law, unless it incites an imminent lawless action," Willis said. "You almost have to be there leading the lawless action."

"If you can write a book that advocates taking up arms against the United States, then you ought to have a Web site that advocates burning down churches," Willis continued. "[It's illegal when] the nexus between what you're saying and what happens is very close - like if you're standing before a church with a torch and telling people to burn over there - but society understands the difference."

The Anti-Defamation League, a New York-based group that describes itself as an organization that combats anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry, has been aware of the Web site for more than a year. Representatives do not consider it illegal or dangerous, but they recently raised their alert level after recent aadditions to the sites - namely links to other sites that provoke religious hatred.

"It was created by a person who is anti-religion in general, [but] it's not illegal material," said Brian Marcus, Director of Internet Monitoring for ADL. "For it to be illegal, it would have to be a true incredible threat. This sight is very general... We don't feel it's part of an organized hate group, but we're looking at it again and we might reassess."

The most the ADL can do, typically, is alert those companies that provide the makers of the Web site with the tools to create their sight, Marcus said. Much like the way those who protest offensive music can turn to the record company and encourage them to pull those records off the shelves, ADL may do the same to Internet service providers."

"The ADL seems to make their living from defaming people," Prozak said. "I've seen their smear jobs and want no part of it."

Two Radical Technologies, Inc., based out of Chantilly, is the Internet provider for churcharson.com, Marcus said.

When contact over the phone, a Two Radical representative denied any knowledge of the site, but did not rule out the possibility it could be a descendant or an offshoot of another Web site they support.

"They could be a client of a client of ours - or a client of a client of a client of ours," he said. He declined to comment further and did not give his name.

Prozak said approximately 3,600 Internet users visit the site daily and that has been the average for the last two years. Prozak first created the site in 1997, but it did not resemble its current design until 2001.

Four others have helped Prozak design the site and there are three more who assist him on "technical issues," he said.

Not every one who visits the Church Arson site endorses it message. Christians and Jews have been introduced to the site through Internet message board Free Republic and many of them have reacted harshly to what they have discovered on Prozak's site.

"Note to the arsonists...A lot of people that attend church own guns," one person wrote. Another reacted in ironic fashion when he stated, "Wouldn't THAT be something if [their office] got burned down itself?"

Prozak claimed he has often been accused of blasphemy and has even received numerous death threats.

"Christians routinely write in and tell us that our souls are damned, which seems a ridiculous thing to say, since we don't believe in their mystical orthodoxy," he said. "Jews tend to call us 'anti-Semites' and suggest that anyone who criticises Judaism be banned or punished."

Prozak insisted he was not opposed to all organized religion and said he did not include Islam on the site because he does not want to be confused with groups who commit hate crimes against Arabs.

"By agreement, we decided not to address Islam on this Web site, as there's so much negative press about them that it's redundant," he said.

"Since the U.S. is at war with a Muslim nation and hate crimes have been committed against people for simply looking like Arabs, we want no part of that bandwagon. Islam, if it stays in the Middle East, doesn't concern us. In their countries, their rules apply."

The Journal, www.jrnl.com
October 10, 2004

http://www.jrnl.com/PDFs/nva/sunday.pdf

I wanted to ask you: Are you S.R. Prozak? I'm just curious because I've looked over that A.N.U.S. website in your sig line and read some of his writings. They're quite interesting and offer a unique viewpoint, although I can't say I agree with all of the ideas expressed therein.

Although I am basically a religious agnostic, I do believe that morality exists -- not so much as a supernatural, transcendental quantity, but rather as a set of instincts engrained into the human psyche through ages of evolution. In brief, the idea is this: The reason why (nearly all) modern humans automatically feel disgust and outrage when we see or hear of the innocent and weak being victimized by strong opportunists is that our primitive ancestors were more likely to safeguard their own safety against "loose cannons" (i.e., unpredictably aggressive or excessively selfish and rapacious people) in their tribes through collective ostracism or retribution against such aggressors. This would, in turn, put the aggressors in a comparatively less advantageous position in terms of survival and breeding (cooperation aids survival). Those who struck a balance between selfishness and concern for others were more likely to do well in society and have their own needs looked after, thus aiding their chances of successful procreation.

It's my feeling that these "natural moral instincts," if you will, can be purged more or less completely from one's psyche, but I think this is a bad idea. After all, if the above model is correct, then millions of years of evolution has already taught that the ideal mode of survival for a society is one of cooperation and a certain degree of concern for others.

Here's one possible angle: Let's say we have a society that eliminates all of the unfit by humane death. That might seem like the most effecient way to do things, right? But the problem is that such a process actually goes against nature. It's not possible for a gene to "desire" its own destruction; hence, people will instinctively rebel against the destruction of their own kin who might become ill or too enfeebled to work, etc. They will also never get over the fear of their own deaths. Again, these are natural human instincts. By attempting to turn humans into "worker bees" who are willing to instinctively sting and die to protect the greater whole, we would go against nature.

Does all that make sense? It does to me, but I often don't express myself well. Anyway, your comments are appreciated.

Thanks for writing that.

To me, the rapacious will also always fear eugenics.

The people who compose the society of the future are those who will be able to accept that life is a chance, as is survival.

I don't like "clinical" eugenic programs however - there is no multiple choice test (and never will be, and if one could exist I could devise it) that will select those who stay and who go.

The primary act of eugenics is to set up a civilization where those with good values succeed, not necessarily monetarily, but at least in breeding.

When more good people breed, bad people become more scarce.

I agree about inherent "moral"/ethical instinct (morality often refers to strictly binary systems of ethics).

We developed these through adaption to our world.

However, the first moral acts involved killing of the amoral within the tribe, so consensus could occur ("in my view").

Only followers of the semitic religions burn in hell, like their churches.