Monday, September 25, 2006:
Anyone can say Thomas Hill Usher has been wrong, and that person will be right in saying it. What comes with that or after that? Do they want to practice the golden rule? Do they understand how people ought to be toward one another? Are they without coercive motives? Are they rebuking my past for the right reason? Do they have my best interest at heart and the best interest of everyone else? If so, there is nothing wrong in stating that I have made mistakes.
It is from that perspective that we name names. We name them so that none of us will misunderstand the dividing line. We must focus in even as we step back. We must see the infinitesimal to see the vast.
Richard Land is a very public figure in the Southern Baptist Convention. He's a self-styled fundamentalist. He is, as many Baptist, a non-pacifist. He even condemns wine though Jesus drank of the fruit of the vine. He has made himself available to his opposition, namely false-liberal calling themselves Christians and also to secularists. Documentary makers on the false left feature him.
Why are we singling out Richard Land? We aren't. He represents millions to one degree or another. Richard is confused. He believes in just wars. He even said that the US should have sent a half-million troops into Iraq to takeover the whole country.
He is right but he is wrong. He identifies many things that are wrong in society, but he doesn't understand that what he is putting forth and the remedy is wrong. He incorrectly thinks that Jesus doesn't think that the US invasion of Baghdad was, and remains, iniquitous. It was a fiendish act.
Jesus cleans the temple, but he didn't do it with the sword of truth that is not synonymous with the weapons of the US military. The truth is that those weapons are what the truth will destroy. This knowledge comes of looking more closely while stepping back to see the whole picture at the same time.
Richard Land is not on the straight and narrow. Anyone following him is being led on the wide path and will not arrive. This is not to say that everything he says is wrong. If you take the right or what he is saying and you combine it with the right of what the half-truth, false liberals are saying, you will have what will lead to the whole truth.
Land is right not to want to see everyone rush to abortions and drinking themselves into oblivion or engaging in homosexual orgies, etc., etc.; however, he is wrong to use anything more than the words of truth. He is wrong to advocate and support militant coercion.
Richard is reported to have said the following:
"[a]n unhatched sea turtle in Florida, an unhatched spotted owl in Oregon and an unhatched snail darter fish in Tennessee have more legal protection under the law than a partially born human being in the United States of America."
He has a valid point. However, in order not to be hypocritical, we must consider the validity of concern for the turtle, owl, and fish and also the human being including after it is born. If the unborn but conceived are valuable, which they are, otherwise nothing is, then the idea that we are to be good stewards and shepherds over all of God's gift is also right. Then the idea of working to bring about the end time by advocating violence is death of the soul.
Jesus came not to bring peace but the division. However, the division he brought is due to people of hardened hearts consequentially rejecting the pacifism of Jesus and consequentially destroying the earth.
That's why John wrote that the Apocalypse is to destroy those who destroy the earth even though that destruction will be the birthing of the new earth and new heaven as one.
Look, the only reason the destruction has to preceded the new is because people refuse to have the new without first having to go through the destruction. They won't do it the easy way of just transforming their hearts within.
It's an easy mistake to make while unenlightened. It's why I made all the mistakes I've made. I didn't know what was happening to me. All I knew was what was taught to me that was to fight back so hard that it would stop. That doesn't work though. We have to stop teaching ourselves, our children, that error. The way to overcome is to overcome the urge to fight.
It's why they murdered Malcolm X. Malcolm started to see. He started to turn from violence. Had he lived and continue on that path and not stopped short, he would have converted to real Christianity. They saw that and killed him. They murdered him to stop his voice from telling the people (especially the descendents of black Africans brought over by greedy white slavers) that peace and love are the truth. It's the same reason they murdered Martin Luther King, Jr. It's the same reason they murdered Jesus. It's why they murder anyone who starts to put things together, who starts to speak out, who starts to say there is a different way from the current worldly way dominated by greed and violence and false liberty (libertinism).
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)