The Devil Went Down to Oklahoma: Black Mass and the First Amendment

by Dr. Gerard Emerhaw

The First Amendment guarantees religious freedom: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … .” The constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion was incorporated to the states in Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940). Invoking the state’s defense of this natural right always seems easy and convenient when the religious practices in question are popular—e.g. when Christianity is involved. When the Supreme Court ruled recently in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it was an unconstitutional violation of the religious freedom of closely held for-profit corporations to require them to provide certain contraceptives for their employees, many Christians vocally expressed their approval. However, when the state violates the religious freedom of non-Christians, many people view it as less problematic. For example, when developers wished to build the Park51 Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan, some critics sought to thwart religious freedom by preventing the erection of the “Ground Zero Mosque.” Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin infamously urged Muslims to “refudiate” it. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich referred to the project as “a symbol of Islamic conquest”: “It's not about religion and is clearly an aggressive act that is offensive.” If Christians sought to erect a Serbian Orthodox Church in a community that consisted primarily of Bosnian Muslims who had been the target of genocidal ethnic cleansing at the hands of Bosnian Serb forces in 1995, would Palin or Gingrich complain? Would there be any public outrage at all? Unlikely.

Uproar against unpopular religious freedom and the First Amendment is occurring in Oklahoma City, where the city government has agreed to allow the Dakhma of Angra Mainyu to hold a black mass on September 21 in rented space in the publicly owned Civic Center Music Hall. The Dakhma of Angra Mainyu is “a religious and educational church dedicated to Angra Mainyu (Ahriman).” Angra Mainyu is the “destructive spirit” of the Zoroastrian faith, and the ancient template upon which Satan is based. The Dakhma of Angra Mainyu seems to blend Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, the Satanism of Anton Levay, the occultism of Aleister Crowley, and New Ageism into a bizarre mélange of rebellious spiritualism:

Destruction and Reconstruction is another way of describing the Death and Rebirth cycle of life. Systems and structures must be dismantled so that new life can be born. Myths and legends about gods and goddesses bringing destruction to the earth are common to all traditions. Yahweh destroyed the world through the great Flood and rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gommorah [sic]. In the Hindu tradition, the goddess Kali, generally pictured wearing a belt made of dismembered arms and a necklace of human skulls, represents the positive power of destruction, annihilating ignorance and maintaining the world order. The god Shiva, Kali's male counterpart, destroys in order to create. …

Dakhma of Angra Mainyu is about freedom from any religion that chooses to bind you to some type of dogma the forces you to restrain your natural animal instincts.  They say desire and “sin” move you away from the ultimate consumer of souls through fire.  Ahura Mazda is the slave driver that forces laws onto mankind that completely against man’s nature.  Only through spiritual and chaotic destruction of this enslavement, will one become spiritually free from not only mortal/ethical enslavement, include freedom from Atar which is the Holy Fire that will consume your soul to recharge Ahura Mazda.  The truest form of freedom is brought about by evil speech (blaspheme).  3 ways define the human existence: thought, speech, and action.  Knowing that mankind is judge off this paradigm, does it make sense to inhibit your animal desires because some “God” said they were evil?  No, the inhibition is to build internal pressure, like a teapot without a valve.  Upon death this gives the Ahuras (angels) that much more energy to consume as they live off of pain and blood.  Thus requiring sacrifice and becoming a mayrter [sic].

The group describes its black mass as “a form of inversion to the Catholic mass”:

The modern form of the Black Mass is still practiced by modern Devil Worshipers to celebrate the perversion of the Catholic Mass still seen in society today.  The Black Mass as gone through a transformation to maintain practice within societal law.  The consecrated host is corrupted by sexual fluids then it becomes the sacrifice of the mass.  The blasphemy remains intact along with corruption of Catholic Mass.  Modern/Laveyan Satanists see this as ritual to mock the Catholic Mass in the form of a blasphemy rite used to deprogram people from their Christian background, however Religious Satanism sees the Black Mass as a religious ceremony to empower themselves and receive a “blessing” from the Devil.  The Black Mass being performed at the Okc Civic Center has been toned downed as to allow it  to be performed in a public government building. The authenticity and purpose of the Black Mass will remain in tact while allowing for slight changes so that a public viewing can occur without breaking Oklahoma's laws based on nudity, public urination, and other sex acts.

Unpleasant? Perhaps. But the religious traditions and rites of one need not appeal to another in a nation that respects the natural right to liberty. It is likely that terrifying but entirely fanciful movies like Rosemary’s Baby, The Omen, and The Devil’s Advocate have induced irrational fear of devil worshippers in the public consciousness. However, the Dakhma of Angra Mainyu does not preach violence as so many other religious groups do: “I respect all life, meaning I will only kill in self-defense or defense of those whom I watch over.”

The Dakhma of Angra Mainyu has a First Amendment right to hold its black mass. However, many are less than thrilled about their exercise of this natural right. TFP Student Action has an online petition against the black mass. The petition states:

With my whole heart and soul, I express full, complete and vehement rejection of the satanic “Black Mass” scheduled at the Oklahoma City Civic Center on September 21, 2014. I urge you to cancel this event which offends 1 billion Catholics worldwide, 200,000 Catholics in Oklahoma and countless more God-loving Americans. Sacrilege is simply NOT free speech.

TFP Student Action allegedly “defends traditional moral values on college campuses.” It was formed in 1973 “to resist, in the realm of ideas, the liberal, socialist and communist trends of the times and proudly affirm the positive values of tradition, family and private property.” TFP Student Action’s director John Ritchie calls the black mass “the most obscene attack against the Catholic mass that can be imagined.” He claims

For someone to deliberately attack the supreme good, [God], intentionally, to cause harm [and be] deliberately filled with hatred is something that not only hurts Catholics and Christians, in general, but everybody of good will.

Ritchie views the First Amendment as anything but absolute:

I don’t think the First Amendment should be used as a baseball bat to bash Christians over the head, and in this case I think it's being used in that way.

The natural right to freedom of religion is inalienable and cannot be abridged by the government no matter how many Talibanesque blowhards sign a petition. To allow democracy to determine rights is to invoke tyranny of the majority. Today enough hard-line Christians sign a petition to get the government to shut down a black mass. What if tomorrow enough Neo-Nazis sign a petition to get the government to shut down a synagogue? What if the day after that enough Islamophobes sign a petition to get the government to shut down a mosque? What if some dark day in the future enough communists sign petitions to get the government to shut down all places of worship?

The black mass is clearly an expression of hostility against Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. However, most religious rites are at least subtle expressions of hostility toward all other religions. Whether a religious service is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, or Satanic, it is essentially sending the message that all other religions are false. And all religious services essentially send the message that atheism is false.

Ritchie assumes that the Christian God—“the supreme good”—exists. The government cannot make such an assumption. Theology is not the job of the government at any level. The job of the government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens. To expect or allow the government to do more is to beg for tyranny. What gives the government the right to decide when someone is exercising his or her religious freedom under the First Amendment and when he or she is using his or her religion “as a baseball bat to bash Christians over the head?” The answer is always inevitably more speech and not less speech. Whether the arena is political, religious, or anything else, “the marketplace of ideas” always best thrives and always best leads to the truth when there is more speech and not less.

The irony is that TFP Student Action is emulating the communism it claims to deplore by seeking to shut down religious expression. Communists in Spain, the Soviet Union, and elsewhere were notorious for oppressing Christians. Why should anyone rationally believe that the government will stop at oppressing devil worshippers? Once the beast gets a taste for religious oppression, it will eventually go after Muslims, Jews, Christians, and all other people of faith. Without social freedoms, economic freedoms are not possible. A government that picks winners and losers in the realm of religion will eventually seek to do the same in the realm of business. The erosion of the natural right to liberty will eventually lead to the erosion of the natural right to property. Eventually, this will all lead to the erosion of the natural right to life. Ultimately, natural rights stand or fall together. The choice is freedom or tyranny.

(For more analysis of the First Amendment, natural rights, and the Real Culture War, read my book The Real Culture War: Individualism vs. Collectivism & How Bill O’Reilly Got It All Wrong available now in print and digital on Amazon.)

@GerardEmershaw

#RCW

Divide and Conquer: Duck Dynasty Edition

by Gerard Emershaw

A&E television has indefinitely suspended Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the clan of TV’s popular reality show “Duck Dynasty” following remarks that the 67-year-old Louisiana native made in a GQ interview. In the interview, the bearded elder statesman made statements that have been perceived by some as homophobic and perceived by others as a sincere statement of true Christian beliefs. When asked what behavior he believes to be sinful, Robertson responded:

 “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Critics charge that this was not the first time that Phil Robertson expressed homophobic views, citing a video of a 2010 speech that has surfaced on YouTube.

While many defenders of Robertson are crying foul based upon First Amendment considerations, this controversy is not a Constitutional matter. The First Amendment defends the free speech and freedom of religion of individuals against infringement by the federal government and by incorporation, against the state governments. Robertson’s rights were in no way violated by the government. He has the right to say what he did. Likewise his defenders and detractors have the right to say what they are saying about the controversy. A&E is a private entity—a cable channel owned jointly by the Hearst Corporation and Disney. Whether A&E has the right to suspend Phil Robertson from the show depends upon the nature and content of the contract. Whether it is prudent for A&E to suspend Phil Robertson is a complex matter involving considerations of sponsors, viewers, etc.

Many Robertson defenders believe that because the sentiments expressed by Phil Robertson appear in the Bible, any disapproval of his words must be some kind of political correctness gone awry. One wonders if they would feel the same if Robertson had used the Bible to attack Jews: “For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.” Or if Robertson had been a Muslim using the Koran to attack Christians and Jews: “Say: O People of the Scripture! Do ye blame us for aught else than that we believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed aforetime, and because most of you are evil-livers?” Freedom of speech and religion require that believers be able to make such statements but also that disbelievers be able to critique them.

The most crucial issue here is not freedom of speech or freedom of religion. It is also not whether Phil Robertson’s words were inappropriately homophobic. The issue is the angry and divided nature of the country. These divisions lead to bizarre and often disgusting attitudes. Even worse, these divisions enable statists to divide and conquer.

While Robertson may or may not be homophobic, there is no doubt that many who have been celebrating his statements are. While many of his detractors may legitimately be defending what they view as a potentially dangerous homophobic slur, many of Robertson’s detractors are playing the “gotcha” game. Such cynical purveyors of bogus outrage just wait to hear an awkward public statement that sounds a bit sexist, racist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted and then pounce. Most of the time such statements are not meant to be offensive. This hardly matters when the gender, race, sexual orientation, or religion card may be played from the deck. Such cynical accusations of bigotry are as morally wrong as bigotry itself.

Notice all of the hatred spewed on the internet because of these divisions. While many critics of President Obama rightly criticize his policies, many attack him because of the color of his skin. While many justifiably rage against Islamic terrorism, many attack Islam in general and lump in all Muslims with terrorists. Such disgusting collectivism pits Americans against one another according to gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. The corporatist and unconstitutional Obamacare is devastating the nation’s health care, yet people are spewing hatred about a reality TV show. President Obama continues to shred the Constitution, yet people often attack him for his race or claim that he is a “secret Muslim.” The Federal Reserve and its nefarious backers continue to destroy the economy, yet the nation is consumed by the nonsensical “War on Christmas.”

The most sickening symptom of this division is what now happens when there is a mass shooting or terrorist attack. The rational and normal response would be to hope that death and injury is minimized and that the perpetrator is captured. However, the increasingly common response is to worry about the political ideology of the violent perpetrator. In the wake of the Boston Marathon Bombing, many progressives hoped that the attack was carried out by Tea Party types. When it was revealed that the suspects were Muslims, neoconservatives and Islamophobes seemed positively gleeful. For many, it no longer really matters how victims may suffer. Instead, it matters that Floyd Lee Corkins was a progressive gay activist, that Paul Ciancia opposed the New World Order, that Karl Pierson was a socialist and Keynesian, etc. Collectivism rearing its ugly head. A Muslim terrorist means that all Muslims are terrorists. A gay murderer means that all homosexuals are murderers. An anti-NWO shooter means that all who oppose globalism and fiat currency are violent criminals. A rampaging socialist means that all socialists are potential school shooters. Or consider the perverse joy with which many speak of “knock out” game attacks. Ecstasy over reporting black on white violence. Consider also those who were more concerned with the idea that George Zimmerman might be a racist than they were with the fact that Trayvon Martin died. Instead of sadness and outrage, the new reaction to such horrific events is joy that the perpetrator holds an ideology that one opposes and dread if the ideology of the perpetrator is similar to one’s own.

Ben Franklin once famously said: “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” With the deep and hateful collectivist divisions now present in the country, it appears that statists will have no trouble erecting separate gallows for each and every one of us.

Some Dubious Explanations for America’s Mass Shooting “Epidemic”

Since the turn of the century, the United States has endured over thirty mass shootings. The inevitable question is “Why?” The suggested answers are typically so dubious that they are often no better than blaming the moon, yellow bile, or demons.

1. Mass shootings are the result of the secularization of America. God has been banished from public schools and the public square, and the Godless monsters that are produced do not know right from wrong and place no value on human life. (The Huckabee/O’Reilly “Traditional Christian Folks” Explanation)

While this explanation makes for some nice red meat for Christian fundamentalists and other “traditionalists,” it happens to be ridiculous. Unless one fails to let facts get in the way of a good argument, it is dubious. Alternet’s Amanda Marcotte has written a piece that ranks the eight best nations to be an atheist based upon factors such as having a high percentage of nonbelievers. These nations – ranked from highest to lowest on Marcotte’s scale – are: the Czech Republic, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, France, Norway, Australia, and Japan. If the explanation set forth by moral blowhards such as Mike Huckabee and Bill O’Reilly is plausible, then one would expect these nations of “secular-progressive” heathens to be places where mass shootings and other violent Godless atrocities occur on a regular basis.

Alas, the facts show that this is dubious. The Czech Republic, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, and Australia have had no mass shootings in the twenty-first century. Japan has had two, France has had three, and Norway has had one – the notorious Anders Behring Breivik who murdered 77 and injured 242 others in 2011. Of these five mass murderers, at least two were anything but secular. Breivik was an extremely religious Christian. French mass murderer Mohammed Merah was a devout Muslim who killed seven and injured eight in March of 2012.

These eight “heathen” nations have among the lowest homicide rates in the world – ranging from .3 per 100,000 to 1.7 per 100,000. These rates compare very favorably with the homicide rate of 4.2 per 100,000 of the United States. If secularism has not caused a rash of mass killings or homicides in general in these eight nations, then there is no reason to believe that the comparatively moderate level of secularism in the United States was a causal factor for mass killings and homicides.

2. Mass shootings are the result of the corrupt media with its violent video games, music videos, movies, and television shows. (The NRA “Let’s Find Another Scapegoat” Explanation)

High levels of exposure to violent movies, television shows, music videos, and video games clearly have an effect on people – particularly children. Studies have shown that such exposure creates both detrimental short-term and long-term effects. Dr. L. Rowe Huesmann of the University of Michigan claims that an analysis of studies demonstrates that exposure to violent media causes children to become more aggressive in both the short and long-term and that this effect is significant enough to be considered a public health threat. In the long-term, exposure to media violence can cause desensitization to violence, cause individuals to create cognitive “scripts” that encourage them to act violently like in the violent media they watch, and to seek out others who are similarly aggressive.

Violent video games – some of the most popular of which among young American gamers are ultraviolent and realistic “first person shooter games” – have also been shown to increase aggressiveness after exposure. Craig A. Anderson of the University of Iowa and his associates have conducted a meta-analytic review of the effects of video games on empathy and pro-social behavior in Eastern and Western countries. Among their most intriguing claims is that video game violence has different effects upon gamers in Western and Eastern cultures. They claim that “cultures characterized by collectivistic values, high moral discipline, a high level of egalitarian commitment, low uncertainty avoidance, and which emphasize values that are heavily Confucian showed lower levels of aggression than their counterparts.” Gamers in Eastern cultures such as Japan also favor different kinds of video games than their American counterparts. While Americans favor action and sports games, Japanese gamers prefer role-playing games that “often involve text reading, patience, and cooperative fights against computer-controlled characters.” The ways in which individuals in the West and individuals in the East interpret the world also greatly differs. Those in the East, for example, are more likely to pay attention to “situational contexts” in video games and other media. Based upon their meta-analysis, Anderson and his colleagues found that experimental evidence clearly shows that violent video game play is a causal factor in future aggressive behavior.

Truth be told, the idea that exposure to violent media is a causal factor in aggressive behavior is neither novel nor surprising. The important question is what this should mean for public policy. At this point, it is far too tempting to begin down the slippery slope of censorship. Parents have the right and responsibility to regulate what media their children consume. There is more than enough information available for parents to determine what media might not be appropriate for their children. Rather than creating a new scapegoat for violence in American society, parents simply need to more closely monitor what their children do. Nobody forces parents to allow their children to play violent video games. Furthermore, parents have the greatest influence on how their children develop during the formative years. If children are drawn to violent video games, perhaps that says more about the failure of parents to properly socialize their children than it does about the behavior of “corrupt” media corporations that are simply offering products that are apt to sell. While this may sound like an overly simplistic solution, it is nevertheless true. Freedom of expression can produce dangers, but censorship is far more dangerous.  

It must also be noted that aggressiveness in and of itself is not a bad thing. Aggressiveness can be channelled into violence, but likewise it can be channelled into positive activities like sport or work. 

The differences between the effects of video game violence on the Western individualist psyche and the Eastern collectivist psyche must also be placed into a broader context. The “Confucian” worldview does not make individuals in Eastern cultures immune to desensitization or violent cruelty. Lower levels of aggression did not prevent Tojo’s Japan from perpetuating atrocities upon China and Korea. This also did not prevent the cruelty of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia or the Maoists in China. If anything, while an Eastern collectivist mindset can perhaps decrease short-term small scale aggression, it is obvious that it can lead to long-term large scale aggression directed by political leaders.

3. Mass shootings are the result of a failure of the mental health system and mental health laws. If rampage killers could be identified before they kill, then tragedies could be averted. Lax civil commitment laws prevent society from being able to intervene and help troubled individuals before it is too late. (The “Everyone Is Crazy and Should Be Placed in an Asylum except Me” Argument)

Whenever a tragedy like that in Newtown occurs, many grab their torches and pitchforks and look for a way to blame the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Shortly before the Newtown shootings, the ACLU successfully opposed a proposed “assisted outpatient treatment” law (AOT) in Connecticut. Such a law allows for the “mentally ill” to be institutionalized and medicated without having harmed themselves or others or having expressed an intent to do so. Connecticut is one of only six states not to have an AOT law on the books.

The now common notion of institutionalizing those who are considered a “threat to themselves or others” is pernicious. Psychiatrists are not akin to the “pre-cogs” of Minority Report and cannot predict what individuals will or will not become violent. Psychiatry is such an imprecise science that one should probably call it a “science” instead of a science. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) “creates” mental illnesses by simply establishing criteria for them in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals. In most cases the APA has no empirical evidence concerning what is or is not a “mental illness” and has no idea about what the physiological causes of such “diseases” are. One need only be reminded that homosexuals were once considered “mentally ill” and women were stigmatized by psychiatry as being “hysterical.” In many ways, psychiatry is to medicine what astrology is to astronomy.  

One need not be a radical Scientologist (or wet one's pants about Xenu) to understand the dangers of excessive power being given to the psychiatric expert class in taking away the liberty of those labeled “mentally ill.” The Soviets regularly abused psychiatry to label dissidents as “mentally ill” and to forcibly institutionalize them. Once inside mental institutions, dissidents were often subjected to torture of various kinds.

If one believes something like that could never happen here, consider the following. In August of 2012, former Marine Brandon J. Raub was kidnapped by police and committed temporarily to a mental hospital after he posted “anti-government” messages on FaceBook. Raub was held against his will in the “snakepit” for a week before a judge finally ordered him to be released. If this is a sign of things to come, be afraid. Be very afraid.

The APA has already made dissent against authority a “mental illness” for children by diagnosing such dissent as “oppositional defiant disorder” (ODD), which can be roughly defined as “a pattern of disobedient, hostile, and defiant behavior toward authority figures.” According to Johns Hopkins: “Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is a behavior disorder, usually diagnosed in childhood, that is characterized by uncooperative, defiant, negativistic, irritable, and annoying behaviors toward parents, peers, teachers, and other authority figures.” That is right. If you are an “annoying” child, you may be “mentally ill.” The APA offers the following criteria for this “mental illness.”

A pattern of negativistic, hostile, and defiant behavior lasting at least 6 months, during which four (or more) of the following are present: 

(1) often loses temper
(2) often argues with adults
(3) often actively defies or refuses to comply with adults' requests or rules
(4) often deliberately annoys people
(5) often blames others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior
(6) is often touchy or easily annoyed by others
(7) is often angry and resentful
(8) is often spiteful or vindictive
Note: Consider a criterion met only if the behavior occurs more frequently than is typically observed in individuals of comparable age and developmental level. 

If the danger of this is not already apparent, consider the following scenario. Jane is ten years old. Her parents are virulent anti-Semites. When her parents tell her to stay away from her Jewish playmates, she refuses. When her parents tell her to read Mein Kampf, she refuses. When her parents try to teach her about Nazi ideology and Aryan race theory, Jane often loses her temper and argues with them. She often annoys her family and their Neo-Nazi friends and becomes easily annoyed when they begin to blame Jews for all of the evils in the world. She often becomes angry and resentful when her parents tell her that the Holocaust is a hoax and that it did not really occur. Jane often becomes spiteful and vindictive when her parents do not allow her to play with her Jewish friends or do not allow her to see a movie with Jewish directors or actors, read a book by a Jewish author, or do anything that is not overtly anti-Semitic. Guess what. Jane is “mentally ill.” Jane has ODD. Psychiatrists may very well prescribe medications to treat Jane’s ODD. They may prescribe methylphenidate (Ritalin). Methylphenidate produces the following side effects.

·                     fast, pounding, or uneven heartbeats;

·                     feeling like you might pass out;

·                     fever, sore throat, and headache with a severe blistering, peeling, and red skin rash;

·                     aggression, restlessness, hallucinations, unusual behavior, or motor tics (muscle twitches);

·                     easy bruising, purple spots on your skin; or

·                     dangerously high blood pressure (severe headache, blurred vision, buzzing in your ears, anxiety, confusion, chest pain, shortness of breath, uneven heartbeats, seizure).

Less serious Ritalin side effects may include:

·                     stomach pain, nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite;

·                     vision problems, dizziness, mild headache;

·                     sweating, mild skin rash;

·                     numbness, tingling, or cold feeling in your hands or feet;

·                     nervous feeling, sleep problems (insomnia); or

·                     weight loss.

The psychiatrists may prescribe dextroamphetamine (Dexedrine). Dextroamphetamine produces the following side effects.

Get emergency medical help if you have any of these signs of an allergic reaction: hives; difficulty breathing; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat.

Stop using this medication and call your doctor at once if you have a serious side effect such as:

·                     fast or pounding heartbeats;

·                     feeling light-headed, fainting;

·                     dangerously high blood pressure (severe headache, blurred vision, buzzing in your ears, anxiety, confusion, chest pain, shortness of breath, uneven heartbeats, seizure); or

·                     tremor, restlessness, hallucinations, unusual behavior, or motor tics (muscle twitches).

Less serious side effects may include:

·                     headache or dizziness;

·                     sleep problems (insomnia);

·                     dry mouth or an unpleasant taste in your mouth;

·                     diarrhea, constipation;

·                     loss of appetite, weight loss

The psychiatrists may also prescribe risperidone (Risperdal) to decrease Jane’s “disruptive behaviors.” Risperidone produces the following side effects.

Get emergency medical help if you have any of these signs of an allergic reaction while taking risperidone (the active ingredient contained in Risperdal) hives; difficulty breathing; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat.

Stop taking risperidone and call your doctor at once if you have a serious side effect such as:

·                     fever, stiff muscles, confusion, sweating, fast or uneven heartbeats;

·                     restless muscle movements in your eyes, tongue, jaw, or neck;

·                     drooling, tremor (uncontrolled shaking);

·                     seizure (convulsions);

·                     fever, chills, body aches, flu symptoms;

·                     nosebleeds;

·                     white patches or sores inside your mouth or on your lips;

·                     trouble swallowing;

·                     feeling like you might pass out

Less serious side effects of risperidone may include:

·                     weight gain;

·                     feeling hot or cold;

·                     headache, dizziness;

·                     drowsiness, tired feeling;

·                     dry mouth, increased appetite;

·                     feeling restless or anxious;

·                     sleep problems (insomnia);

·                     nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, constipation;

·                     cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose; or

·                     mild skin rash.

Jane’s parents need not be anti-Semites. Alter the above scenario to make them racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. Nothing changes. In any of these cases, Jane is “mentally ill” and a candidate to be poisoned with psychiatric medications. 

Before long, the APA will undoubtedly create a new “mental illness” that is an adult version of ODD – just as it earlier created “antisocial personality disorder” as an adult analog of “conduct disorder.” Such a new “mental illness” would lead to those who resemble Thomas Jefferson, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., or Lucy Burns being diagnosed as “mentally ill.” 

In short, too many seek to scapegoat groups such as atheists, media corporations, or the “mentally ill” for mass murders instead of laying the blame on the mass murderers themselves.