Right now, there is a huge debate going on about what is anti-Semite, anti-Zionist, anti-Israel.
Shulamit Reinharz, a sociologist who is also the wife of Jehuda Reinharz, the president of Brandeis University, wrote in a column for The Jewish Advocate in Boston: "Most would say that they are simply anti-Zionists, not anti-Semites. But I disagree, because in a world where there is only one Jewish state, to oppose it vehemently is to endanger Jews." 1
This is the fear of the current secular state of Israel being delegitimized in the eyes of the world. Well, South Africa was not legitimate while it practiced racial segregation and political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites. The current state of Israel is practicing ethnic segregation and political, legal, and economic discrimination against Arabs (and Persians if there are any in Israel).
Right now in the US, there is a huge movement afoot to seal the borders to limit immigration of mostly Latinos. This too is based upon the desire of a certain group within the US to maintain numerical superiority. The percentage of Anglo-Saxons is continually going down due to having smaller families and due to immigration and the tendency for immigrants to continue having very large nuclear families.
Does any nation-state have the right to keep out others based upon race or ethnicity? Can other nations rightly coerce other nations one way or the other?
The question always comes down to what is the highest and best example. Non-coercion is always the highest and best example. Peaceful appeals are always superior. That said, it must always be remembers that the removal of disease means something is rooted out. The question is always that of the least harmful manner in which to root out evil.
Ultimately, leaving things in God's hands is the least harmful. If everyone would adopt this, what evil would there be to root out?
As for Shulamit Reinharz' concern, where is the concern for righting the wrong? Where is the concern about the causality of the condemnation of the political, legal, and economic discrimination against another ethnic group? Where is the application of the golden rule? Shulamit Reinharz doesn't want to be treated the way the Arabs have been, and are being, treated by the Jews of the current state of Israel. Then where is the concern for those Arabs?
It is true that the Arabs who are Muslims have not accepted the truth, but then again, neither have the Israelites who have not accepted the truth of the message of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, who among mankind is authorized by God to offend the Arabs in Palestine? Have all the Arabs been given the word? No. Even after they have been given the word, whose heart will be hardened enough to slaughter those who reject it? Will it be the Christians? No. Will it be the chosen, the elect, the anointed, the saved? No.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)