Celebrating Martin Luther King, Jr. — just a postmodern heretic himself
We continue MLK week here at the ArchAngel Institute. That brave man was hounded by the FBI and persecuted for his Christian ideology. Even killed for it. Had they the ability, they surely would have handed him over to the same process to which I was subjected. Psychologists and psychiatrists are the “clergy” of the postmodern state. Just as the Pilgrims had their witch trials for heretics, the postmodern state has its “extremists” trials. I was subjected to one and my legal career burned at the stake under the stern gaze of a cadre of Indiana’s high priests and priestesses of political correctness, — JLAP’s Tim Sudrovech and Terri Harrell.
Because I am openly Christian in my expression and because I refused to recant from my pro-life convictions they had me tied to the stake — all the while refusing (numerous requests) to even meet with me or look me in the eye. (It is easier to dehumanize the intended sacrifice that way.)
It pretty much began with Dr. Stephen Ross’ report, which went so far as to offer the authorities a “rewrite” if it did not include all necessary to “process me” as they wished. Ross bound me to the stake with the following, which was subsequently rejected as shallow and unsupportable by all of the subsequent psychologists and psychiatrists to whom I went – even the two government affiliated professionals:
44. [The Ross] report identified Plaintiff as a pro-life person with a traditional Christian worldview and constitutional, conservative political perspective who intended to advance the pro-life and Christian cause through the ArchAngel Institute.
45, In that April 23 report Dr. Ross concluded that Plaintiff “appears to have moral integrity.”
46. In that April 23 report Dr. Ross concluded that he had found nothing that “should preclude Mr. Brown from taking the bar exam.”
47. Defendant Sudrovech refused to accept this conclusion of the government’s chosen and pre-briefed expert Defendant Dr. Ross.
48. That April 23 report also included the following statement that Defendant Tim Sudrovech employed to delay issuing a report from JLAP that was necessary to move Plaintiff’s application to the Indiana bar: “[Mr. Brown’s] emotional expressiveness and mood variability suggest to me the possibilityof a sub-clinical bipolar disorder of a hypomanic type.” (emphasis in original)
49. Upon information and belief “emotional expressiveness” refers to Plaintiff’s religious and pro-life communications.
50. Upon information and belief this statement was inserted into Dr. Ross’ report for prejudicial reason and with discriminatory intent.
51. Plaintiff alleges that this statement was inserted into the Ross report for the very purpose of causing a remand to a psychiatrist.
52. That April 23 report also included the following statement that Defendant Tim Sudrovech employed to delay issuing a report from JLAP that was necessary to move Plaintiff’s application to the Indiana bar: “I am not making these statements purely based upon the fervor of Mr. Brown’s religious beliefs and convictions . . . . The fervor, however, in which he represents himself vis a vis others and the intensity of his interpersonal style suggests a sub-clinical level of a bipolar disorder which would warrant further consideration by a psychiatrist.” (Emphasis added)
Imagine if Dr. Ross had authored the same report to keep a woman out of the bar! Or stating that a homosexual was unstable due to his choice in how he expresses his affections! COULD NOT HAPPEN IN INDIANA.
But Christian pro-lifers are fair game. Here is the section from the Birmingham jailhouse letter that is directly on point with Dr. Ross’ obvious biases against me:
But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Was not Amos an extremist for justice: “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream.” Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: “I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” Was not Martin Luther an extremist: “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God.” And John Bunyan: “I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.” And Abraham Lincoln: “This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.” And Thomas Jefferson: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . .” So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary’s hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime–the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.
