Monday, August 27, 2007

The government is training the clergy to “quell dissent”, in case of martial law.

This is so comforting. Here’s a bit from a post in the Agonist.

A KSLA-TV news report from Louisiana has confirmed the story that Clergy Response Teams are being trained by the federal government to "quell dissent" and pacify citizens to obey the government in the event of a declaration of martial law.

The report confirms the existence of a nationwide Homeland Security program which is training pastors and other religious representatives to teach their congregations to "obey the government" in preparation for a declaration of martial law.

A whistleblower who attended one of the training sessions reports that the feds were recruiting religious leaders to help implement government Homeland Security directives in anticipation of a terrorist attack or a nationally declared emergency.

The first directive was for pastors to preach to their congregations Romans 13, the often taken out of context bible passage that was used by Hitler to hoodwink Christians into supporting him, in order to teach them to "obey the government" when martial law is declared.

It was stressed that the pastors needed to preach subservience to the authorities ahead of time in preparation for the round-ups and to make it clear to the congregation that "this is for their own good."

Pastors were told that they would be backed up by law enforcement in controlling uncooperative individuals and that they would even lead SWAT teams in attempting to quell resistance.

I have so many questions about this. “Clergy Response Teams”? Is this a normal thing for members of the clergy to do, to act as sort of a “Go Team” in case bad things happen? I suppose I can see this for things like trying to minister New Orleans after being destroyed by Katrina. But, Jeesus…. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT training the clergy? Isn’t that a bit out of bounds, when you think about the separation of church and state. And why, in God’s Name, would clergy go along with this plan? Are they just tools of the federal government?

The next question I have is, are we EXPECTING martial law to be required in the near future? Is this really necessary, at this point in time? Usually, when someone does contingency planning, yes, it is for a future event that may or may not ever happen. Evacuating coastal towns and cities in the case of a tsunami warning, that is a reason to have some contingency plans available. Tsunamis have a way of happening from time to time, and their effects can be devastating. However, no one puts together plans like this in case someone thought that there might be a chance they are going to need them. For instance, we don’t have, to my knowledge, contingency plans for extraterrestrial invasion. That is probably not going to happen. However, someone obviously thinks that martial law, on a country-wide scale, might be possible in the near future.

That is pretty scary. “Controlling uncooperative individuals”? “Quell resistance”? Those are frightening concepts, very Orwellian. Even after September 11, 2001, this country did not need martial law. It seems to me that the country would probably come together, at least temporarily, if we were to be attacked again. So, what is this event that someone is postulating that would cause so much uproar and protest from the great unwashed of this country that would require martial law to be imposed?

Think of that. Martial law essentially means that we would be living in a police state. Basic freedoms are curtailed (for the great unwashed, in any event), in order to have a better chance to preserve…. Something. Just what that “something” might be is worthy of speculation.

UPDATE: After thinking about it, I find the use of the word "pacify" exceedingly creepy. That word has some very big emotional content to it, and I don't like it at all.

No comments: