Concerning our post, "Mark the Beginning of the Reversal of the Hypocritical Homosexual Agenda," "Contrary" commented as follows:
My blog was one of the sites linked to in your little list.
Just for the record, no Harry Potter books were removed from my home. I am planning to reread No.7 again soon. My 4 year is looking forward to the day when he's old enough to read the books and watch the movies.
In short: We love God, Harry Potter, and The Gays in pretty much that order.
Please do not link to me ever again, you short-sighted, judgemental Nazi.
Oct 25, 4:52 PM
What is harmful in your mind about the Harry Potter movies that you consider your 4-year-old too young to watch them?
Let me clarify something for you. The Bible is loaded with greed, violence, and sexual depravity. There would be evil without The Bible. There is evil surrounding The Bible and in The Bible. When we say that parents have a duty to censor, we envisage wise parents restricting unsupervised and uninstructed access. Parents have a duty to interpret, teach, and lead in the direction of righteousness. We have no doubt that a group of children properly handled could study both The Bible and Harry Potter books in a beneficial way discovering error and truth. When we said that parents (some) will remove Harry Potter from bedroom bookshelves, we were not closing the door on such parents learning how to instruct their children concerning the pitfalls of obfuscated or misinterpreted prose.
The problem parents face is the sheer magnitude of unfiltered, un-interpreted messages inundating their children who are highly impressionable. Hillary Clinton was severely castigated for saying that it takes a village to raise a child. We say the village (the world) does raise the child. The village can also lower the child. That's what is happening.
You apparently have concluded that homosexuality poses no harm to your four-year-old. You'll be glad when your child grows up to engage in homosexual acts. You are looking forward to it. You'll encourage your child to do it since it is just loving and healthy and causes no problems in and of itself. We disagree and so did and does Jesus Christ. We don't say that as a logical fallacy called "appeal to authority," although it is an appeal to authority. It just isn't fallacious. We appeal to Jesus, because he is right. He has authority, because he is right.
You did not say we are wrong about homosexuality being harmful. You just called us specific names in an attempt to cause others to associate us with Nazism. That doesn't work. Our kind doesn't fall for that. We see through it, instantly. You are creating yourself and defiling yourself with what you say and what you've written here on our site and no doubt on your own site and elsewhere.
You are striving for the sake of negative gain. What abuse have you suffered, and on whom are you taking it out? Don't. You are bitter towards Jesus. It comes through loud and clear. What is he asking of you that you are refusing to give and why? Search your soul while there's time. Turn and repent.
About linking to your site, you linked to it from here yourself via your comment. Regardless, you are afraid that people will see our site and yours and change from the error that is your position. They will anyway. You can't stop it. The truth is coming out. We think that, that change is marvellous.
We don't check sites that way. We don't have a database that can filter based upon such requests nor would we. We handle things in our mind according to priority. We assign weight to various matters.
We see that you are on the open and public Internet, not blocking traffic to your site, and being indexed by the various search engines. Your site is public. Wherein did you get the idea that you may pick and choose which sites link to yours? Your site and its content are matters of public news. You commented publicly on the news. We pointed to your site on account of that. What you are insisting upon is tantamount to telling us not to point to a newsstand on a street corner.
If you don't like your blog being linked to, close it down or make your posts private and available only to your subscribed users. That's your prerogative. Those are your options.
We aren't going to set a precedent of deactivating links upon request. We aren't going to take books out of our library. We aren't going to be gagged for the sake of sin. When Jesus said not to resist evil, he wasn't saying accede to its every request. There is resistance and then there is resistance.
If anyone wants to link to us or not, that's his or her choice.
We can control the posts and comments on our site, but we aren't going to be controlled from the outside concerning the public sites to which we do or do not link.
We are under no obligation by God to accede to the requests of sinners to hide their willfully unrepentant sins. Neither are we coercing anyone. Neither are we turning souls over to the devil. They do that to themselves.
When they told Jesus to stop preaching, he refused. They wanted him away from the Temple, off the streets, and silenced. They didn't want him exposing their errors to the people who would and did turn away from them to God. Jesus refused. He did so for the benefit of those who would listen and follow him. He did so to stop the harm. He did it out of a greater love, the greatest love. He went to the cross doing it, for doing it. They murdered him for doing it.
If you ask us to harm, we won't. You are asking us to do something in the furtherance of harm. Doing what you want is harmful. Your request is unrighteous.
Unless you can convince us that Jesus would accede to your wishes, we won't.
The Holy Spirit is not moving us to do what you are asking. The Holy Spirit is instructing us to see through what you are doing (harming), to call it what it is, and specifically and directly to warn others about it.
If George W. Bush told us to remove a link to his public website at the White House, we'd say no. Your situation is no different.
You called us a "short-sighted, judgemental Nazi." Did you think about that before you wrote it? You judge us a Nazi. Do you know what a Nazi is? What are we advocating or doing that brings forth the fruits of Nazism? Did you investigate the whole of what we stand for before you came to your conclusion?
We are pacifists. We believe in doing no harm. We also believe it is love to warn against harm. Does that sound like Nazism to you?
It would benefit you immensely to research our position specifically about Nazism. Anyone making an honest appraisal of our teaching and deeds will not judge us to be Nazis, quite the contrary.
God bless your son, the Nazis, the homosexuals, J. K. Rowling, and everyone else, including you, with the truth about what is and what is not harm but rather truly liberal that is really bountiful.
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)