Ladies and gentlemen,
Dear friends,
The Pope is a very disagreeable fellow. At least disagreeable for all those whose estimation for freedom, reason and tolerance is high – even if their number became not any more too high since Hitler and the beginning of the global American rule.
His rule is based on indoctrination and violence preferably exercised on persons finding themselves in vulnerable situations, mostly on children but also on adults especially when they are facing illness, death or any other kind of plight. As a result we can observe individuals who are basically “neurotised”, who lack strength to think logically or to defend their own interests. The church, like any other major religion coming to power, is consequently fighting any counter-model, regardless of whether it is a religious or a reason-based competitor. Religion fights them because any competitor may widen the range of individual or over-individual criticism of religious dogmas.
But to exercise this rule the Pope needs money.
The latest, even if small example of his revolting influence we could observe was his interference in the legislation on the pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). From the outset reserved for very special cases, he still tried to hinder its limited application. By the improper means of “definition evading” – a nerveless, brainless few-cell agglomeration could never be a person or an embryo imaginable in any respect as a person – he sets up the modern version of the well-known slogan of “every sperm or every zygote is holy”. In fact the PGD may serve as an even if small model of self-determination instead of being foreign-ruled through the immanent failures of our nature.
But again: to achieve this purpose, the Pope needs money. Money to pay the amplification for the numerous voices of his functionaries and intermediary spokesperson present in every newspaper and on every [broadcasting] channel. So what we should break is its constantly state-granted flow.
Though he should be tolerated like any other person to express his absurd opinions – as absurd and ridiculous they may sound in our ears –, he should not be allowed to ring his modern bells at the expense of our bank account. He may pray in favour of illness and genetic diseases instead of preventive diagnostics and absence of malformation, but he should pray on his own account like any other civil association, but not propagate his inhuman goals by the means of plundered and misdirected money.
By the case of Dr. Nittmann we learned for the first time that billions of Euros were robbed from non-church members in Germany when they got unemployed. Derived from the Hitler Concordat – still in force up to now – and by the intermediary of an unconstitutionally imposed tax directly deducted from the unemployment benefit, the German church state plundered 900 Euros from Dr.
Nittmann alone and billions of Euros from unemployed non-church members during 30 years. Thereby and despite of the declared non-membership, every unemployed German non-church member had to pay a forced church-tax to benefit an organization he didn’t belong to and didn’t want to support. Thanks to your lasting support of our campaign, this unconstitutional plundering of German atheists was stopped in 2005. So for the first time in 30 years, the long-lasting unconstitutional church tax deduction based on the Hitler Concordat was no longer applied on nonchurch
members in Germany!
The achieved restoration of the German constitution is still lacking the compensation of the plundered victims. Dr Nittmann’s legal action filed with the European Court of Human Rights was rejected after three years of complete inactivity without giving any orderly decision. Instead of this, the competent German-influenced Chamber declared not to recognize the slightest sign of a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights, and this despite several national legal procedures and decisions recognizing the tax robbery as unconstitutional and reflecting thousands
of cases. So true to the slogan that “injustice cannot be unjust because it should not be unjust”, the rejection by the European Court reflects the decline of the rule of law as well as the loss of sovereignty of its Members States recently submitted to the European Union dictatorship subservient to the Pope. Constitutions, laws and European conventions will only be respected when they are watched by an attentive and vigilant public. For this, the lasting protest was not
strong enough.
Nevertheless the case of Dr Nittmann may serve as a model of what we can achieve if we unite and if we act together without slackening, and it could be a model for what we can reach if we strengthen our common actions.
For what we have to achieve if we want to weaken the Pope is to cut him off from his constantly granted cash-flow.
We should not be jealous of this granted money, and we should not try to imitate his organisation that can be without any doubt considered as successful. We should “Ecraser l’infâme” [“Crush the Infamous”] and not “Envier l’Infâme” [“Be envious of the Infamous”], and for this we should concentrate all our energies to cut him off from his so richly flowing money. If we adopt the principle that no religious body shall receive public money or state subsidies, we have to endorse too that this principle is also valid for any other philosophical or even atheist organisation. So even
in the rare case when money is offered to us from public sources, we should take it, but only to advocate the principle that no philosophical association receive state money, be it religious or not.
If we want to remove the Pope from his command we do not even have to create a new secular model. The French institutional laicism – after all what I know from our friends in France, nowadays so often undermined by breaking its laws, from the publicly-financed religious private school to the interdiction of the burka in the street – has only to be restored and respected in all its terms. A more perfect model reflecting the primacy of reason instead of religion is not necessary.
We should also abstain from any kind of sectarianism. Sectarianism is always and in any situation a signal of capitulation after the model: “if two quarrel, the third will laugh”. Successfully fighting means gathering all forces in the essential points, or to say it with Lenin: “we have to defend the sects against Czarism”. So we have to defend them if they are attacked by the major churches – from Jehovah’s Witnesses to Scientology, but also the Ahmadiyya Muslims or may be in the future the Syrian Alawis against the Pope or an installed Taliban-like Sunni Islam.
So our slogan should be: No money for the Pope and no special treatments for any major church, and we should give the Pope no reason to laugh at us! Let us financially drain the religious swamp!
Thank you for your attention.