"The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve." Luke 22:25-26 (KJV). Jesus's words come straight from Isaiah. "The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful." Isaiah 32:5 (KJV). The churl is the greedy, stingy, conservative capitalist of today. The churl pays people to present the churl as a benefactor and bountiful. The capitalists claim that they and their system are the source of prosperity. They deliberately suppress, obfuscate, ignore, and avoid all the negatives associated with capitalism, which far outweigh the supposed benefits. That's it.

The message is simple, but the system of selfishness has conditioned the masses from birth to avoid the truth.

Wikipedia Attribution:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true: Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments."

No original research:

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought." This wording can be easily misconstrued. The Church's understanding is that Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought that has not gone through what Wikipedia deems to be "reliable sources." The published material of Wikipedia-defined reliable sources must be the source of the content of regular Wikipedia articles. That published material, of course, may be about original research. In other words, unless the original source (the origin) is highly acceptable to the Wikipedians in general, all original materials must be filtered through Wikipedia-defined reliable sources.

As for the Wikipedia definition of "reliable sources," it appears that one may just as easily substitute the word mainstream for reliable. The Church certainly doesn't view reliable and mainstream as synonymous. Judith Miller of the New York Times was considered a reliable source in the mainstream. Many of those termed extremists or fringe or kooks by the mainstream didn't buy Judith Miller's articles during the lead-up to the Iraq War for instance. The Real Liberal Christian Church certainly didn't.

"...the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks, magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses.... Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable, but see...exceptions."

Where such publications aren't required is where primary sources are cited. Directly citing the material on the Church website would constitute citing the primary source for an article on the Church for instance. Primary sources must though be verifiable (able to be fact-checked or corroborated by another source considered reliable) to meet Wikipedia requirements and must not be for the purpose of sustaining a position taken by the Wikipedia editor in the Wikipedia article. They are only to "make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia editors are to present material in a neutral manner.

Self-published material is allowed under narrow circumstances. Certain criteria are relevant to the case of the Real Liberal Christian Church:

1) "it is not contentious"

The message of Jesus Christ is contentious and controversial for the same reasons Jesus was murdered. It is impossible now to write about the real message within the mainstream without the adversaries of that message getting up in arms, even literally.

2) "it is not unduly self-serving"

The Church's website contains absolutely nothing that ought to by rights be construed as "self-serving" as that term is being used by the Wikipedia. Our Church theology is centered on the real meaning of "self." God said "I Am." Being one with that is being one with that self. The Church cannot present this without Muslims for instance taking a strong exception, so much so that Christians are threatened with death in many places where Islam has come to dominate by force. This isn't Wikipedia, so the Church isn't going to source this truth for the reader. The threats have been reported in the mainstream, and the Church does believe that such threats have been made and by Muslims. That isn't to say that agent provocateurs working for the U.S. and Israeli neocons and others haven't stirred up such Muslims. They have.

3) "it does not involve claims about third parties"

The Church's material does involve claims about third parties. If one were to take away all such claims, one would be left unable to discuss Isaiah/Jesus-Liberal Theology and Jesus's message to the world.

These Wikipedia policies certainly do result, among other things, in reducing electronic spam that Wikipedia generally views as illegitimate and undesirable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The specific policies taken as a whole do though present a Catch-22 for the likes of the Real Liberal Christian Church.

Those who are deemed reliable sources by Wikipedia standards will most often research and write on things also acceptable in the mainstream. The whole mainstream is circular. This, of course, isn't lost on those at the top of Wikipedia. They are fully aware of it and intentionally support it with justification in their view. They see the whole process as that of filtering out the fringe elements, those whom the Wikipedia founders term "kooks," extremists, etc. Wikipedia desires to be a mainstream encyclopedia. It sees that as the highest and best policy. The general consensus of those who already have the wealth, power, and control is thusly reinforced. Willing change then becomes extremely gradual.

The Real Liberal Christian Church is a radical (root) departure from the mainstream. It is a new denomination. It has a new name. It has a new theology (it is really an ancient theology predating Isaiah that has been deliberately kept out of the mainstream) with a new name (Isaiah/Jesus-Liberal). Wikipedia policy expressly disapproves of neologisms (new names). Of course, the whole of Christianity was once considered brand new with a new name, even though the messianic prophecy was ancient at the time.

To remain an article in the Wikipedia, an article on the Real Liberal Christian Church would have to point to mainstream published material specifically about the Real Liberal Christian Church and its theology (by name). The Wikipedia also would want to see verifiable citations for each specific subtopic within the main article and sub-articles about the Church and its theology, etc.

The problem or dilemma for the Church is that few mainstream researchers and writers are in the habit of nosing around in other than the mainstream feeding and drinking troughs.

If the Real Liberal Christian Church is on the Internet, which obviously it is, but is not linked to by mainstream research sources such as Wikipedia, LexisNexis, the Open Directory, the Yahoo Directory, and others, or doesn't show up high and often in Google search results for Real Liberal, Liberal Christian, Real Christian, Liberal Church, and the like, then mainstream researchers and writers are mostly never going to even be exposed to the Real Liberal Christian Church and its message, the real message of Jesus Christ. This has a chilling effect and censors even the word of the Holy Spirit. It keeps it out of the mainstream, exactly consistent with the satanic spirit.

Google, Yahoo search, and MSN search are the main search engines on the Internet. They have been deliberately geared to capitalism primarily for the sake of the profits of Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft. Anti-capitalist messages, including Jesus's, deliberately and consciously are suppressed. The imperial capitalists have forced the major media corporations to comply, including their news divisions.

The Church has been asked repeatedly about how it is going to get people to its website and once there, how it is going to keep their interest and obtain their help. We've heard that maybe people just aren't interested. Maybe people aren't looking for such material or answers. We've been asked if there are people who do agree and will help. Well, they don't already agree, because the thoughts have never occurred to them in quite the way they are synthesized and expressed by the Church and on its website. The issue remains that of exposing the people to the message. Those who really know and truly love the truth when they hear it will help.

The current worldly system is self-perpetuating under the guise that it is fine to be self-regulating, hence the difficulty of breaking through the walls and barriers set up by that system. They treat articles as commodities in the marketplace, which doesn't become a problem until the gatekeepers (to use the libertarian terminology) start favoring falseness and keep out the truth, as they are trained and paid. The Wikipedia staff expressly state, "Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them." It is our understanding that what the author of that quote is intending to say is that the Wikipedia is not knowingly involved in a conspiracy to silence anyone. The Church's position is that the term conspiracy must be understood by the particular connotation intended that is only understood by seeing the larger context. Taking care here would include not ruling out that on a certain level, Wikipedia is swept up in a conspiracy, which it is when viewed from the Isaiah/Jesus-Liberal Theological perspective. The Isaiah/Jesus-Liberal Theological perspective is a worldview that is suppressed by its adversaries who hold to the diametrically opposed worldview. Can there be any doubt about that?

What would have to happen for the Real Liberal Christian Church to remain in the Wikipedia as a full article is for some writer who meets with Wikipedia's approval ("reliable source") to publish an in-depth article about the Church and its theology from a Wikipedia-style neutral position. Then anyone else could add an article to Wikipedia citing that first writer's work. The editor could also augment the first writer's work by describing the Church using verifiable material readily available on the Church's website. If more than one "reliable" writer publishes a piece covering the Church and that disagrees with any other, the disagreement may be added to the Wikipedia article with the "reliable sources" quoted/cited.

What could a Wikipedia article look like if it were allowed without meeting Wikipedia attribution-requirements or if the source were a Wikipedia-defined reliable source?

The Church has posted such an article on its website. Such an article would eventually need to be broken out (probably quickly to satisfy core Wikipedians) into a series of sub-articles so that each and the main article would be under 50 KB's. This is a subjective page-weight policy of the Wikipedia.

The Church grants express permission to anyone who wishes to copy public Church material to Wikipedia.

The following textbox contains the Wikipedia mark-up of the full linked article referenced above. Feel free to use (with proper attribution and in accordance with the Church's copyright) the text in the textbox.

  1. Click anywhere in the textbox
  2. Do a Ctrl-Home (hold the Ctrl key down while pressing the Home key) to make sure you're at the very beginning
  3. Ctrl-Shift-End to highlight all the text
  4. Ctrl-C to copy that onto your computer's clipboard (buffer memory)
  5. In any blank text-editor or word-processor file, do Ctrl-V or use the paste command from the edit menu to paste the text
  6. Delete the <pre> tag at the beginning and the </pre> tag at the end
  7. Save the file
  8. Paste your marked-up text or portions thereof into the Wikipedia editor
  9. Click the preview button at the bottom of the editor to verify the results before saving if you wish
  10. Save the article
  11. Add links to your work from other appropriate Wikipedia pages, such as some of the pages linked in your article


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.