A news article says the following:

Los Angeles police will publicly name 11 of the city's worst street gangs....

...alarming increase in drive-by shootings and murders in a city which has an estimated 720 gangs with some 40,000 members.


The strategy breaks with past policy by publicly naming 11 gangs and their members — something police have been reluctant to do for fear of giving gangs notoriety.

The new approach 'challenges these menaces by exposing their corrosive behavior to the scrutiny of a more informed and confident community,' according to a briefing paper.

The measures follow a 14 percent overall increase in violent gang-related crime in 2006. One area of the suburban San Fernando Valley saw a nearly 160 percent rise in such violence. Police say street gangs were responsible for 56 percent of the 478 murders in the city last year.


Malcolm Klein, professor of sociology at the University of Southern California, said the decision to publicly name gangs was a mistake.

'These kids will walk with clippings in their pockets. Kids join gangs for identity, status, reputation and a sense of excitement. If you declare war on gangs, you are feeding exactly what they joined for in the first place,' Klein said in a telephone interview.1

In order to end gangs and violence, it is necessary for the entire society to move to non-violence. The youths who grow up in the gang environment cannot be expected to become peace-loving while the entire culture of the country is militaristic and its entertainment is near gladiatorial.

The so-called "war on gangs" is an ignorant approach. The only way to end them is through love. The reason gangs exist is due to the absence of real love, which is unselfish love for all one's neighbors who are all of humanity.

Also, the people will not have the problem of street gangs in their consciousness and weighing on their consciences unless the gangs and their activities and the connections to overall competition and violence (including militaristic and police-state) are clearly identified.


1 Jill Serjeant. "Police to name and shame 11 worst LA street gangs." Monsters and Critics. February 8, 2007. Link. (last accessed: Thursday, February 08, 2007). Return to text body.


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)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.