Modern Torture Techniques Emerged from Inquisition reports “The Atlantic”
In the January/February 2012 issue of The Atlantic, Cullen Murphy writes about the history of torture and relates it to current events.
Excerpt: ”The new science of interrogation is not, in fact, so new at all: “extraordinary rendition” and “enhanced interrogation” and “waterboarding” all spring from the practices of the medieval Roman Catholic Church. The distance, in both technique and ideology, between the Inquisition’s interrogation regime and 21st-century America’s is uncomfortably short–and provides a chilling harbinger of what can happen when moral certainty gets yoked to the machinery of torture.”
Read the full article at http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/01/torturer-8217-s-apprentice/8838/
John F. Kennedy’s Speech Affirming Separation of Church and State
In the months leading up to the election, on September 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on the issue of his religion. In the weeks leading up to the speech, many Protestants had questioned whether Kennedy’s religious beliefs would preclude him from being objective in the White House. Kennedy’s response that he believed in separation of church and state was an eloquent response to the questions. Fifty years later, they remain relevant. Here is a transcript of what he said:
Rev. Meza, Rev. Reck, I’m grateful for your generous invitation to speak my views.
While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election: the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida; the humiliating treatment of our president and vice president by those who no longer respect our power; the hungry children I saw in West Virginia; the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills; the families forced to give up their farms; an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.
These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues — for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.
Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe — a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.
I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test — even by indirection — for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it.
I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none; who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him; and whose fulfillment of his presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.
This is the kind of America I believe in, and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a “divided loyalty,” that we did “not believe in liberty,” or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the “freedoms for which our forefathers died.”
And in fact ,this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died, when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches; when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom; and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey. But no one knows whether they were Catholic or not, for there was no religious test at the Alamo.
I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition, to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress, on my declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)— instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948, which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.
I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts. Why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their presidency to Protestants, and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France, and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.
But let me stress again that these are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.
Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.
But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.
If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser — in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.
But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the presidency — practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can “solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so help me God.
Article18: Afghanistan — The Land that Freedom Forgot; A Profile on Religious Persecution in One of the World’s Most Depressing Nations (Liberty Magazine)
The following excerpt is from an article written by RLTV associate editor and Article18 creator Martin Surridge that appeared in the November/December 2011 issue of Liberty Magazine.
EXCERPT: The sound and smell of motorcycles roaring down a street in Kandahar must have overwhelmed 16-year-old Atifa in the moments before the attack. Before she really knew what was happening, one of the cyclists approached Atifa, her sister Shamsia, and several other girls and threw acid onto their faces. Atifa’s scarf melted into her hair, and 19-year-old Shamsia lost much of the skin on her face and the temporary use of her eyes, swollen shut from the inflammation.
This tragic story, as well as details of other acid attacks on Afghan school girls, was reported by CNN’s Atia Abawi in January of 2009. Stunned observers around the world learned that the religious extremism in Afghanistan was more violent than many had thought possible. Despite the forty-fourth article of the Afghan constitution specifically promoting the education of women, many Islamists still hold the hard-line views of the Taliban, which from 1996 to 2001 banned even basic female education for being un-Islamic.
Afghanistan has been called a failed state—a nation incapable of governing itself adequately. It is a land marked by systematic corruption, widespread human-rights abuses, and continual violence. Landlocked in the mountains of central Asia and highly dependent on the export of heroin, Afghanistan has been gripped by war, civil unrest, and terrorism for nearly a century. Instead of improving, things there seem only to be getting worse.
Since regaining its independence from the British in 1919, Afghanistan has ousted kings and generals. The country endured and then resisted Soviet occupation in the 1980s, and suffered through a lengthy civil war. The civil war facilitated the rise of the Taliban, who gained power after storming the presidential palace in the capital city of Kabul in September 1996.
Read the full article on the Liberty Magazine website
* * * * * * * * * * *
Article18 is a weekly blog written by Martin Surridge, Associate Editor of Religious Liberty TV. Article18 logo and other artwork created by Bradley Kenyon.
Don’t forget to check out other recent Article18 entries.
Article18: Norway — Personal Reflections on the Origin of a Tragedy
Eric Foner on the separation of church and state at America’s founding
History professor and author Eric Foner answers the question: Getting to the American Revolution, what was the impact of the Revolution on religious freedom and the separation of church and state? Click on the video for links to more parts of the Norton interview.
Article18: Poland — Citizens March in Bialystok to Protest Antisemitism; Death Metal Singer Not-Guilty After Trashing Bible on Stage
By Martin Surridge – For much of the twentieth century, Poland served as a sort of punching bag for many of Europe’s strongest armies. Half a million Polish soldiers died in the First World War, the country was brutalized by the Nazis in the Second World War, and for the last half of the century, Poland was repressed by Soviet-inspired communists in Warsaw. Today, Poland is struggling with a completely different set of problems, many of which are common to Europe as a whole–immigration, the expansion of the E.U., and changes in cultural norms that accompany a demographic shift. In addition to these already vexing concerns, Poland is also grappling with the problem of where to draw the line in the case of free speech and offending religious sensitivities. 
This is Article18–RLTV’s weekly blog specifically dedicated to religious liberty issues in other countries around the world. Each week, we profile a different nation, and the struggles facing one of its religious communities. This week, Poland, where citizens in Bialystok protest against horrendous statements of antisemitism and a death metal singer is allowed to go free after ripping up a Bible during one of his concerts.
During the Second World War, what was arguably history’s most deadly and vicious assault on religious liberty took place in the unassuming countryside of Nazi-occupied Europe. Almost half of the Jews killed in the Holocaust were from Poland. That number is approximately three million. Ninety percent of Poland’s Jews were murdered in Nazi concentration camps, and today, in some towns, the only legacy of that tragedy is a plaque or a statue of remembrance. So last week, when local “vandals used green paint to spray a swastika and ‘SS’” on a monument dedicated to the hundreds of Jewish villagers who were burned alive in Jedwabne village during the Holocaust, protesters took to the streets demanding an end to the “wave of thoughtless hatred.”
Other hostile phrases such as “I don’t apologize for Jedwabne” and “They were flammable” were spray-painted onto the monument. The march was led by Sen. Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz and the mayor of the city of Bialystok as well as other concerned citizens.
The AP reports that those attending “The ‘March of Unity’ walked in silence from the city center to a monument of Ludwik Zamenhof, a Jewish doctor born in Bialystok, who invented the Esperanto language. It occurred without violence or arrests, despite a counter-demonstration by people chanting nationalist slogans.”
Sadly, this is not an outlying incident–”Other recent anti-Semitic or racist attacks in Poland have targeted a synagogue in the village of Orla, a Muslim center in Bialystok, and the Lithuanian minority in the Punsk region.”
A lack of respect for the religious beliefs of others seems to be a common trend in Poland as of late. But in some scenarios, acts of religious intolerance fall within the bounds of free speech, as in the case of Polish death metal singer Adam Darski.
“Adam Darski, who goes by the stage name Nergal and is the frontman for the death metal band Behemoth, was charged after he ripped up the Bible during a 2007 concert in Gdynia, in the country’s north.” Three weeks ago, “a Polish judge found a death metal singer innocent of offending religious feeling, ruling that his ripping up of a Bible during a show was a form of artistic expression consistent with the style of his band.”
Poland is a strongly Roman Catholic nation, with almost 90% of the country identifying themselves as such. So when Darski ripped pages out of the Bible, tossed them to concert-goers and instructed them to burn them, he was charged with offending religious feeling. But after the court explained that it had no “intention of limiting freedom of expression or the right to criticize religion,” Darski celebrated the verdict on his website writing, “I’m so glad to see that intelligence won over religious fanatics in my home country [but] there’s still so much work to be done to make things right.”
The line between free speech and criminal defamation of a religious group can sometimes be rather thin and some insensitive hardliners in Poland will probably accuse the law of double standards. But surely there is a noticeable difference between these two incidents.
Matthew Kramer is a close friend of mine from college, an amateur entertainment journalist and serious fan of heavy metal. Along with Brad Kenyon, who created the logos for this blog, and RLTV contributor David Ranzolin, Kramer and I ran our college’s biweekly student newspaper. He saw Darski’s death metal group, Behemoth, in concert a few years ago and while nothing outrageously provocative occurred–other than the usual screaming and ear-piercing music–he explained what separates even the most offensive art from criminal, racist acts.
“There is a difference,” Kramer said. “When the Bible is torn up on stage some people are offended, just like with the Koran.”
“But vandalizing a Holocaust memorial is worse because of the associated pain. There are still people alive who had family members killed during that time.”
Article18 is a weekly blog written by Martin Surridge, Associate Editor of Religious Liberty TV. Article18 logo and other artwork created by Bradley Kenyon.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Don’t forget to check out other recent Article18 entries.
Article18: Norway — Personal Reflections on the Origin of a Tragedy
Article18: Uzbekistan — Recent Incidents of Violence Against Christians Alarm Religious Minorities
Religious Liberty in French Romantic Poetry: Gérard de Nerval’s Verse Lends Space for Other Religions
By Lauren Peterson — While the number of topics in poetry is unlimited, poetry is commonly thought of as that which explores love and
Gérard de Nerval (1808-1855)
loss. When poetry is brought up, one may be quick to think of Shakespearean love sonnets or Emily Dickinson’s poems on death. Yet, poets, including the two just mentioned, had much to say on religious matters. One lesser-known poet, coming after Shakespeare and before Dickinson, directly addressed religious liberty in his work.
After three mental breakdowns, including at least one in which he was hospitalized, French poet Gérard de Nerval published one of his lesser-known works: a mythological poem entitled “Delfica.” One year later, in 1855, he hung himself from his window grating, having been known as a man of ambiguity and mystery. His pet lobster, which he would take for walks with a blue ribbon, had added to this reputation. He was a son of a doctor who had served in Napoleon’s army, and his mother died while accompanying him when Nerval was a meager two years old. Nerval later had even attended some medical classes, supposedly in order to appease his father. Ridding himself of a painful history, he created a family ancestry of grandeur during his first mental breakdown: one which connected him not only to German royalty, but back even to the Roman emperor Nerva. His imaginative and constructive abilities reflect some of the better-known Romantic poets, such as William Blake, who created and worshiped his own deities. Nerval continued to construct, religiously this time, with “Delfica.” There is no need to brush up on Greek mythology if this name is not familiar: Nerval constructed it as he had constructed his own name. For those with the ability to comprehend French, Nerval’s poem gently while firmly consoles Daphne, letting her know that her gods have not abandoned her forever:
Delfica
La connais-tu, Dafné, cette ancienne romance,
Au pied du sycomore, ou sous les lauriers blancs,
Sous l’olivier, le myrte, ou les saules tremblants,
Cette chanson d’amour qui toujours recommence ?…
Reconnais-tu le Temple au péristyle immense,
Et les citrons amers où s’imprimaient tes dents,
Et la grotte, fatale aux hôtes imprudents,
Où du dragon vaincu dort l’antique semence ?…
Ils reviendront, ces Dieux que tu pleures toujours !
Le temps va ramener l’ordre des anciens jours ;
La terre a tressailli d’un souffle prophétique…
Cependant la sibylle au visage latin
Est endormie encor sous l’arc de Constantin
— Et rien n’a dérangé le sévère portique.
For those not fluent in French (including myself), a translation begins with a trot, which is as bad as it sounds. A trot is a word-by-word translation of a poem, and for this poem, sounds something like: “They will return, these Gods you cry forever!” making it sound as if the speaker denounces Daphne’s crying habits. The translator’s job is to then turn this back into Nerval’s poem, which means looking for the poem’s main ideas. Nerval cleverly uses symbols and imagery that have, like him, an ambiguous nature. They are symbols claimed by multiple religions. For instance, many lay claim to the olive tree as a symbol within their religion. Could the speaker be alluding to multiple religions at once? The speaker acknowledges that Daphne’s gods are presently absent, though. Yet, he claims they will return. It appears that the speaker argues that there is a time for all religions, as if they go through a cycle, which gives space for them all.
My translation emphasizes the idea of tolerating multiple religions while trying to maintain the same rhyme scheme:
Daphne, Nymph of Plants
after Gerard de Nerval’s “Delfica”
Do you know, Daphne, that old romantic song,
Beside the Fleur-de-lis, or the Lotus from afar,
Above by the wise owl, or by a crescent-enclosed star,
That passionate melody that continues to long?
Do you remember temples with their mighty columns,
The bitter lemon you bit with your teeth,
And the cavern that hides its visitors’ defeat,
Where the dead dragon’s seed waits to blossom?
These gods whom you cry over will come back,
Time will place the ancient days on track,
The earth shakes with the news of their return.
Yet, the prophet remains stoic
and continues to see Constantine as heroic
– and the pillars at the entrance remain firm.
Having first made it big with his translation of Goethe’s Faust, I would like to think that Nerval would encourage the translation of his own works, even if some aspects are lost in the move.
Even though Nerval’s suggestion that religions go in a cycle may seem bizarre, the questions that both his poem and lifestyle raise are fascinating. What if multiple religions do have a time and place to exist? Since the symbols he used are shared by many religions, could it mean that we have some things in common? His poem has the ability to encourage great conversations and his lifestyle reveals, among the importance of not pressuring a kid into medicine, that diversity adds great richness.
Lauren Peterson is a senior English major at Walla Walla University and is planning to attend medical school after her graduation in June. In addition to studying literature, Lauren enjoys making lattes for her friends, swimming laps, and spending time with her two adventurous kittens–Lewis and Clark.
Discernibly Proactive: History of Adventist Involvement in Public Policy
Discernibly Proactive
Balancing National Temperance Reform with
Opposition to Sunday Law Legislation
By Kevin R. James & Gregory W. Hamilton
Published in the June 2004 edition of Liberty Express Journal
Slavery and the Civil War – How the North and South were to Blame (Adventist Review)
On this 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War, the Adventist Review is examining the history of the fiercest conflict ever on American soil. In light of the modern human trafficking that most people are only now becoming aware of, Ellen White’s article originally published during the Civil War is worth re-reading.
EXCERPT:
The North have had no just idea of the strength of the accursed system of slavery. It is this, and this alone, which lies at the foundation of the war. The South have been more and more exacting. They consider it perfectly right to engage in human traffic, to deal in slaves and the souls of men. They are annoyed and become perfectly exasperated if they cannot claim all the territory they desire. They would tear down the boundaries and bring their slaves to any spot they please, and curse the soil with slave labor. The language of the South has been imperious, and the North have not taken suitable measures to silence it. . . .
Read the full article in the July 21, 2011 issue of the Adventist Review.
Atheist Group Wants to Stop World Trade Center Cross (CNN)
EXCERPT: A group of atheists has filed a lawsuit to stop the display of the World Trade Center cross at a memorial of the 9/11 terror attacks.
The “government enshrinement of the cross was an impermissible mingling of church and state,” the American Atheists say in a press statement. The group says it filed the lawsuit this week in state court in New York and posted a copy of the lawsuit on its website.
Speak Now – A Response to the European Sunday Alliance
The proposal of the European Sunday Alliance presents several problems – instead of recognizing liberty of conscience in these issues, it would rely on the majority opinion that Sunday is the appropriate day of rest to shut down Sunday commerce and in the process would ignore and marginalize the rights of those who observe a different day.
I am a huge supporter of a weekly day of rest. I personally observe a weekly day of rest, and, like many others who write for Liberty, have advocated for the rights of those who have been denied rest day accommodation through the legislative and legal process. I have advocated for the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which would make it harder for employers to force employees to choose between their religious rest day beliefs and their jobs. Employees need to be treated with respect, and given appropriate breaks by their employers.
However, the proposal of the European Sunday Alliance presents several problems – instead of recognizing liberty of conscience in these issues, it would rely on the majority opinion that Sunday is the appropriate day of rest to shut down Sunday commerce and in the process would ignore and marginalize the rights of those who observe a different day.
The language of proposed Sunday rest laws is nothing new, in fact, it was one of the first pieces of legislation passed when the Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity. In March of 321 A.D., Constantine declared, “Let all judges, the people of cities, and thoseemployed in all trades, remain quiet on the Holy Day of Sunday. (Code of Justinian, Book III, Title XII, III. THE JUSTINIAN CODE FROM THE CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS. Translated from the original Latin by Samuel P. Scott. Central Trust Company, Cincinnati, 1932).
Following the passage of the law, the Council of Nicea met in 325 A.D. and decided that Sunday was to be not only the day of rest, but the day of worship, and that Passover was to be observed on Sunday as well. Following that, those who insisted on keeping the seventh day as the day of rest and worship were severely persecuted for both civil and religious reasons.
In more contemporary history, the formation of the European Sunday Alliance last month parallels a similar development that took place in the aftermath of the American Civil War. In 1885, a petition was circulated for the U.S. Congress to use its powers to regulate interstate commerce to ban interstate trains, military parades, and mail service on Sundays except for work “of necessity, and mercy and humanity.” A bill was introduced in 1888 by Congressman Henry Blair, and it was soon endorsed by a wide range of religious organizations and labor unions including the Knights of Labor.
Most of the advocates at the time promoted the secular nature of the uniform day of rest, however for many religious advocates it represented a return to the kind of moral values that would reform a society that had so recently been torn apart. They believed that a return to Sunday Sabbath rest was a Biblical imperative, but publicly argued that it was for the good of society.
From a practical, economic standpoint, a uniform cessation of the wheels of commerce aside from certain health and safety exceptions, was required, otherwise it simply would not work. Since the majority believed that Sunday was already the day of rest, the Blair bill called for Sunday observance. Since the majority had thus defined the moral imperative, those who rested on a different day would simply have to adapt. In fact, those who worshipped on the seventh day of the week because of their religious beliefs could be deemed as acting illegally if they did not also rest on Sunday.
While the national bill did not pass, local variations passed across the nation, and some who worked on Sundays were arrested and even jailed.
In its Founding Statement, the European Sunday Alliance argues that, in the interest of synchronicity, Sunday is the appropriate day of rest for all of Europe, and makes no allowance or acknowledgment of what should be done for those whose faith requires them to rest on a day outside of Sunday. In fact, it is not hard to see how those who rest on a different day might be an annoyance or hindrance to Sunday rest, and even in the debate may be portrayed as roadblocks, troublemakers, or even anti-religious. Businesses who open on Sunday could be fined, and those who conduct their own entrepreneurial endeavors on Sunday could also find themselves operating against the law.
Many people are predicting that the European Sunday Alliance does not have the political power or support to actually implement a Sunday closing law across Europe. This could be true, but today, as in ages past, those who value liberty of conscience cannot afford to sit idly by hoping that it goes away. They need to make their voices heard, both legally and theologically. Legal arguments may become moot as laws can change, so those who wish to defend their beliefs must also be able to provide a theological basis to demonstrate the reason for their religious commitment and be able to demonstrate that it is, for them, a moral imperative, not simply a preference.
While one cannot predict the inevitability persecution resulting from what appears on its face to be a well-intentioned, if misguided proposal to relieve economic and political turmoil through rest, European history shows that stranger things have happened. Now, before it passes, is the time to speak up for those minorities who could be adversely affected if this proposal becomes law across Europe. It is a serious proposal and those who treat it as a mere curiosity may ultimately wish that they would have spoken up earlier.
###
This piece also appears with others addressing this issue at the Liberty Magazine Roundtable at http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=1760.
Add to Google