Governments derive their power from the consent of the people. This is true. It is true in real Christianity, because real Christianity is absolutely not coerced. No one is whipped into being a real Christian. Jesus never forced anyone to accept his message. He simply spoke the truth, and those who accepted and acted accordingly were members. Those who did not, were members of a different house that does abominable things to its members and nonmembers alike.

The United States never obtained the consent of the people. There are many people living in the United States, born into it, who don't voluntarily consent to the government. They totally disagree with the form of government. This is why the house has always been inherently divided and will fall. It cannot stand.

Contrary to Abraham Lincoln's assertion in his Gettysburg Address, the United States is not the test of whether or not a nation can long endure. The reason is because the United States was not truly conceived in liberty and the proposition that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither was, or is, the United States of America a government of, by, or for the people. Lincoln's is a mischaracterization of the real history of the United States.

Now, the people of the United States can demand that the leadership be held to account for the atrocities for which those leaders have been responsible. However, that is simply more of the same coercion that is the root cause of all the evil in the first place. It is simply more hypocrisy.

Even in the progressive discipline [Matthew 18:16-18] in the Christian Church, the Church can at the most conclude that someone is a heathen. Once that conclusion has been reached, all the same commandments of returning good for evil still apply. The worst that can happen to the heathen is that he or she is no longer a voice in the body and not privy to the congregation. The heathen would not live among them. The public privilege (where public is internal to the Church) of the Christian Commons and Church membership would be lost through no fault of the Church. The heathen though wouldn't be punished by the Church even though living outside the Church is punishing.

This may seem to be what nations practice now to some extent. Well, it is to some extent. The difference lies in that the Church doesn't force anyone. It has no arms. It doesn't do anything but speak the truth. It does not harm. The heathen harms himself by his choice to be a heathen. The Church doesn't make that choice for him. He is free not to make that choice.


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.