The Westboro Baptist church has come to extreme persecution in comparison with other homophobic hate groups largely due to its radical picketing agenda. They picket funerals and memorials for American soldiers. The church basically believes that anyone in a public position of power is a sinner against God because they are not doing everything they can to persecute those who do not follow an extreme fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. As would be expected, this makes the church’s teachings and messages somewhat hard to swallow for most, as well as inciting hostile reactions from those holding opposing views in some instances.
Many believe that persecution against Westboro is due to its extreme message of homophobia, that its religious appearance is merely a superficial vessel through which it spreads that message. I believe it is their method of expression that leads to the commonly violent reactions against church members rather than the views that they are expressing. There are many groups who share at least portions of the church’s beliefs, but few, if any, go so far as to blatantly show disrespect and hatred for our nation’s most revered heroes. Phelps has made a habit out of bullying anyone who opposes him, within his constitutional rights. He showers his enemies with lawsuit after lawsuit if they dare to stand up for themselves. He consistently pushes the boundaries of the system to make their lives a living hell. That, without a doubt, is why Fred Phelps and his churchmembers are persecuted.

In my first paper, I wrote about the newly elected Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church and the rifts in the Episcopal church that her election has caused. However, one must understand the events of the years leading up to that election and the following rifts, as well as the contemporary political climate to understand exactly why the Episcopal Church is in such a crisis.
Whenever someone is asked what the issues are with Katherine Jefferts Schori, these are the issues mentioned: same sex marriage, abortion, creationism vs. evolution and liberal vs. conservative interpretation of doctrine. To anyone who is a follower of current events, these issues should sound extremely familiar. Yes, dare I say it these are all political issues as well as religious issues, and it is the fact that politics and religion have become so intertwined that Katherine Jefferts Schori’s election has become so controversial. Because these issues have come to light in the political arena, these are big issues in the religious arena as well. At some other point in time, if these issues were not being discussed, say in the late nineteen seventies, just after women were allowed to be ordained in the Episcopal Church, there might have been issues with the fact that she is a woman, but that is about it. Because these issues wouldn’t have been discussed on a wide scale, she might not have ever been asked to take a position on them.
Because of these facts, it is safe to say that it is in fact external factors outside the church that are the true causes of the controversy amongst the Episcopal parishes. Since church leaders have been forced to take positions on the doctrines of the church that they think should be enforced by the state, some of the laity do not like the answers that they are hearing.

The root of Valve's persecution is money. Digital distribution cuts distributors out of the deal, and they are currently one of the most influential forces in the video game industry. Naturally, as soon as Valve announced Steam, they were plunged into a series of legal battles with their distributor, Vivendi Universal. Although ideally the future of video game distribution would be complete digital delivery for all games, legal obstacles, such as Valve’s conflict with Vivendi, stand in the way. I believe that eventually digital delivery will be the main method by which video games are distributed, but it can be easily argued that video game distribution will remain a tool used by only a small percentage of gamers. Legal battles and the slow diffusion of technology are obvious obstacles that could be argued but there are many more. Valve’s persecution has virtually ended, since they have resolved their legal troubles with Vivendi Universal, but persecution of the idea of digital distribution has only just begun. Every time a software studio tries to convert to digital delivery, they will be persecuted by their distributor and others that stand to lose money in the processs. Valve has indeed been persecuted, and further persecution awaits those that try to follow in Valve’s footsteps.

Amanda Lynn Livelsberger is being seen as the dumbest parent on earth right now because of her decision to give her 13 year-old son pot as a reward for doing his homework. We all understand the same principle; Livelsberger has just decided to put her own spin on it.
At first glance you say that you don’t blame people for thinking she’s dumb, and to a point neither do I, but what if there’s more to the story here? What if she was just doing her job?
Livelsberger is a parent, and has performed as such just with the use of other shall we call them, “materials.” In many ways she is doing just what any other mom would do for her son. Articles I’ve come across sarcastically praise her for getting a 13-year-old to do his homework. I say why not truly give her praise? We do the same for parents everywhere when they do it their own way right?
Livelsberger has taken a lot of heat for her out of the box ideas as a parent. But when you look at it from another angle, you can see that because of how irrational her actions have been, that there’s a wall blocking any sign of her credibility so that not many people are able to see her side of the story. It is difficult to judge Livelsberger one way or the other. Of course the obvious is to say that she has no place parenting a child. I think that situations like these teach us how to see a different point of view, and not just go with what is the standard. Since people began having children we’ve slowly set up a list of ideals and responsibilities and that is what has made Livelsberger the center of so much controversy here. It will be interesting to see how her sentencing turns out in November, as well as what those close to her have to say.

The Church of Scientology has been persecuted time and time again, yet this so called religion (or fringe religion as some scholars would call it) continues to persist and thrive today, claiming membership in the millions (though estimates vary from 50,000 to 500,000 members). The roots of Scientology and key background information about its founder L. Ron Hubbard are necessary to unravel the underlying causes of these persecutions and why things are the way they are today.
To begin with one should take a look at Hubbard’s history, most notably, his credibility in a number of arenas. Among these include his education (the man claimed to be a nuclear physicist), and his ideas about Dianetics, which have been criticized by establishments such as the American Psychological Association and Consumer Reports. They state that much of his theories are unsupported by facts and scientific/empirical evidence.
Hubbard began his early days as a well-known science fiction writer, which seem to surface from his teachings. Most note-worthy is his teaching of thetans, extraterrestrial spirits that “colonized humans long ago.” According to Hubbard, the origin of man began 75 million years ago when the alien ruler Xenu brought billions of humans to Earth on a spacecraft, blew them up with Hydrogen bombs, and their souls stuck to the living, which continues to inflict chaos and mayhem today. Therefore, Scientology’s core practices of auditing and training seeks to clear the self and seek the truth by going through levels of Operating Thetan (the highest level being OTVIII), obtained only through large amounts of money. It seems as though this religion appeals very much so to the bourgeois. “The spirit falls into a material world and runs into trouble because it forgot who it is” (Melton, researcher at UC-Santa Barbara).
Obviously most of these ideas would conflict with other religions, especially Christianity (who has persecuted Scientologists heavily). Evolutionary scientists would also probably argue in vain about some of its beliefs and theories such as the origin of man. And of course there is a great deal of hostility between Scientologists and medical establishments.
It should be noted that an aspect of religion comprises of a set of beliefs, principles, or practices adopted by a number of people. Nevertheless much can be drawn from the roots of Scientology behind its founder, and its ideas, theories, and practices, which continue to serve as causes for its persecution.

It is commonly known that David Irving was arrested in November of 2005 under charges of Holocaust Denial. Since then, he has been convicted before a judge and sentenced to three years in prison under an Austrian court. The common consensus among his prosecutors is that by keeping him in prison, the Austrian Government ensures that he will be made an example of, and Holocaust Denial will be seen as the disgusting act it is. I, on the other hand, believe David Irving’s incarceration will simply lead to his ascension to the status of martyr who bears the mantle of free speech. This subject is as important as it is delicate. What does Irving’s imprisonment say about the freedom of speech? Is the idea of arresting someone for their views (ironically) fascist? Could Austrian’s reaction to Irving create a rise of sympathizers who will, in turn, only help his cause? Or does is Irving’s imprisonment justified for the sake of preserving our world identity? In an article by Howard Jacobs in The Independent (London edition), he asserts David Irving should rot in prison because they “accelerate the cruel process of forgetting, murdering a second time those already murdered.” A similar view is presented by David Cesarani in an article in The Guardian in which he states that such a matter cannot a matter of freedom of speech, because his words were lies! Irving’s imprisonment is an important statement about hatred, not free speech. A line must be drawn between hatred, lying and freedom of speech. On the other hand, in an article by Brendan Oneil in BBC News, Deborah Lipstadt thinks we should release him and “let him fade in to obscurity where he belongs”. Despite whether Irving’s situation could be considered worthy of martyrdom or not, the importance of the issue lies in the fact that he will be considered a martyr if kept imprisoned. He has even started writing a book during his time in prison in vain of his idol who also told of his ‘struggle.’ Will David Irving’s imprisonment draw the lines for a “democratic, civilized, and tolerant society” (Cesarani), or will it only turn “cranks in to martyrs” (O’Neil)? Unfortunately, the latter proves to be more likely.

The Republican heretics have escaped prosecution altogether. At first glance, it seems that they have accomplished this feat because of their position in power. After all, in 2000, the Republicans controlled Congress and the presidency for the first time in forty years. The heretics could define what it is to be a Republican, since they were in control, right?

This is, strangely enough, not the case. The Republicans held power of government, but not the media mouthpiece. The media, in whose best interest it was to display the dissenting side of the story, sought to discredit the Republican regime, and it had to choose between two routes. It could either reveal that the Republicans in power were not true Republicans, or it could define all Republicans as bad. The media chose the latter, polarizing American politics rather than digging up grassroots ideology. The Republican Party was not yet historically dominant at that time, and if the Democrats defined the Republicans in control as heretics, the possibility was too great that a wave of orthodox Republicans would simply take over.

Since the Republicans had a preexisting enemy in the Democrats- one that was previously quite successful, in fact more so than the Republicans had been in the years leading up to 1992- the “take them down at any cost” movement served to solidify changes in the sitting administration rather than in the opposition.

Heresy has been taking many forms in this day and age. Yvette Deloison, a French paleontologist, took her heretical stance when she proposed opposite theories to the ones originally established about our ancestral lineage. Unlike the heretics in the past, despite how loud she argued against our textbooks, she was not persecuted by the public nor the scientific community. Confirming a scientific theory about our past is beyond difficult, so various theories are drawn from the evidence gathered. Ever since our technology has expanded, various theories have been created and pushed; and since Deloison’s theory is just one of the many others contradicting the commonly accepted one, she has yet to be persecuted. Another reason for not persecuting her is because, though she preaches her theory to many, she has yet to receive a cautious amount of followers. Without the complications of a majority of the public supporting her theory and opposing the other, the heresy is infantile and not a cause for alarm. Deloison’s heresy is subtle, so others may disagree that her persecution is her lack of followers and attention despite the attempts. Time will tell whether her heresy becomes worthy of persecution or gets swept under the rug.

Hunter S. Thompson, a great heretic of the 20th century, is not persecuted all that much. Although some may disagree with Hunter’s views, and call his writings tedious and very predictable, it can be argued that he is not widely persecuted by Americans. HST is praised for his use of voice, true to life experiences, and integration of his life memoirs with his novels and articles. It can be seen throughout literary reviews, newspaper articles, and magazine columns, that HST was a true inspiration to America, not a burden on it. Such writers such as Jann Wenner, the editor of Rolling Stone Magazine, and Tom Wolfe, a writer for the Wall Street Journal and several other publications, show us just how important HST was to the 20th century America. They both state how HST lived exactly what he wrote, and what you read is what you got, “it was always an event, not a meal with Hunter (Wolfe)”. HST was not widely persecuted, but his writings will always ring through the years of heretics. Persecution is something that everyone will face in his lifetime, so it is impossible to say that there was no one who didn’t side with Thompson in his political views and ways of writing. Although, as you take a look onto the entire impact of HST, it can be observed that he was not persecuted but praised for his outrageous explosions of words and thoughts in his writing.

There are numerous heretics in the world but not all of them are persecuted for their beliefs. Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah is one. Hatch is a prominent leader of the Republican Party which is the conservative “pro-life” Party. He is a staunch supporter for stem cell research and adjusts his “pro-life” stance by saying it applies to the unborn as well as the living. But, instead of his Utah voters and others on Capitol Hill persecuting him to the greatest extent, Hatch is gaining support. Democrats have praised Hatch for his efforts and in his being a “bipartisan” in politics. By being able to put party lines aside, it is possible that the heretical views of Hatch will lead to a new revolution of ideals for the Republican Party. There are signs today that show stem cell research has made political headway even among conservative groups. The state of Utah definitely hasn’t lost its faith in one of its most beloved senators. When abortion pro-life adults were asked whether they approve or disapprove of Hatch they responded by giving him an approval of 70% or above for the past 8 out of 9 months in 2006. If Hatch was being persecuted for his beliefs, his approval ratings would be down and he would be in jeopardy of loosing his Senate seat in the upcoming elections when he is actually favored over his opponent.

This idea of Hatch being a heretic not persecuted is important to discuss because it could show a change in people’s beliefs. Many Americans are suffering from diseases where stem cell research could be beneficial. If just one person can stick their neck out on the line and not be persecuted for doing so, others could be encouraged to do the same thing and the research could gain a multitude of support and legislation. But, it also serves to show how modern times shape the old ideas of the past. The Republican Party isn’t what is was when it first arose and as mentioned before, conservatives are even beginning to show their support for stem cell research. With conservative support growing, the issue of Republican stem cell opposition could be a bump on the road to fresh Republican ideals.

Heretics rarely face judgment for their crimes in the modern world. Edwin Newman has challenged the founding concepts of linguistics, claiming that language is to be used “properly” and not to be skewed to express ideas, for over forty years without persecution despite the fact that there are individuals who view contrary beliefs. Two examples being Victoria Fromkin, who noted that Newman lacks an understanding of linguistics, and Jim Quinn, who stated in his book American Tongue and Cheek that he would much rather trust the “language sense” of great writers over Edwin Newman. Yet Newman’s heresy persists to this day and no one has done anything about it. The explanation to this is more complicated than the old “freedom of speech” cliché.
Newman has spent the years of his life without persecution for several different reasons. First, those who voice their opinions against Newman often keep it to a whisper. The only people who recognize Jim Quinn are the people at Google.com search engine. Second, there are those who agree with Newman and his belief of proper grammar, such as Professor Arlen Nydam who followed his statement of approval with a demonstration of how “crunk” is now incorporated in the Oxford English Dictionary. Finally, the field of linguistics has no strong “backbone” organization that can take action against Newman. It is as though they don’t mind Newman’s comments because they are absorbed in their own work. Until these factors are rectified, people like Edwin Newman will persistently nag those who choose to express themselves linguistically now and far into the future.

The reason for Peter Duesberg is being prosecuted is his ideas about HIV and its relationship, or lack thereof, with AIDS. Duesberg’s ideas are very society involved and therefore, the idea has enhanced consequences. He is being prosecuted by both the scientific community as well as the public community because his ideas go against a seemingly cemented doctrine and it could affect many thousands of people in the way they look and approach the disease of AIDS. If an idea creates that much attention, it will create even more controversy. Though Duesberg is being prosecuted in the scientific realm for his ideas that will affect the way people look at AIDS, he is making a very important and somewhat common step among the scientific community. Though he is being persecuted at this time, years from now he might be honored for his research. Because his ideas are so grand as to change the way a worldwide disease is treated, people are not interested in changing a doctrine that seems to be correct. New research on the subject would indicate that we don’t really know the cause of the AIDS, and that would scare the public and baffle the scientific community.
The topic is important to talk about because so many people are affected by this particular subject. Since the ideas involved in this controversy are highly discussed among researchers, and laymen alike, to completely go against a supporting pillar of the doctrine elicits a venomous response. The research already performed on the subject of the HIV/AIDS relationship is very highly regarded. Duesberg ultimately ignores this data and fits his hypothesis and claims to his lab’s research data only. The researchers need to find the truth so that this disease can be prevented or treated and the best way to do that would be to find the true cause of the condition. Even though scientific doctrine supports the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS, it doesn’t completely close the door on the opportunity for a new hypothesis. The way the scientific community works is based on disproving a hypothesis, not proving one. If Duesberg’s idea can not be disproved, then the scientific realm has to consider it as reasonable cause now and in the future.