[RLCC Reply-comment to Bryan Morton's comment on "Anti-Environmentalism is Evil"] On November 3rd, 2007, Bryan Morton commented as follows: The first author, [in the box], did some research on his subject. The second is only repeating the propaganda he was led to believe. If you really want to do what's right instead of merely spewing informational pollution perhaps you might take the time to consider the appalling environmental conditions in countries like the old Soviet Union or other oppressive examples where they do things your way. Maybe ten minutes of reading on the tragedy of the commons which explains how private ownership and protection of private property rights result in far more positive uses of resources whereas group ownership creates selfish waste and degradation and explains why the most polluted places are those which are owned in common, like the Great Lakes. Maybe reading a little Frederic Bastiat or Mary Ruwart's 'Healing Our World'. Read something, anything, but please educate yourself before writing anything else. Works and compassion, etc., are things which each of us is called to do as individuals. It is personal sacrifice. It doesn't count if you merely use the government to steal from someone else so you can feel good about what "you" have done.
Bryan, you don't know us. You don't know what we stand for. Yet you've made sweeping statements about us as if you know. We are repeating propaganda directly from Jesus Christ and God. It is God's doctrine. God's systematic doctrine (propaganda) isn't pollution, Bryan. It leads to salvation. Jesus followed it and led the way. He was resurrected and ascended on that propaganda (teaching).
As for the Soviet Union, it was started by atheist who hated and murdered Jesus and who misappropriated and misrepresented the commons via their abominable militarism. Yet you say they did things our way. Why didn't you take the time to research our position before you wrote your judgment?
Actually, if you had read with the slightest of care what we wrote, you would not have glossed over (with your eyes wide open but yet blinded by the hardness of your heart) the word "coercion" and the context in which we used it repeatedly. The God-hating Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists preached and used coercion. Yet you identified us with them. Why did you do that?
Read again what we wrote and watch for the term "coercion" and the context. Then see if you will still say that the Soviets did anything our way. If you still maintain that they did after that, you're unworthy. If you see the light and the error of your first reading, have the courage to admit it openly here for the sake of righteousness and your soul.
The tragedy of the commons in England was when the greedy Duke of Normandy, William, showed up with his violent, covetous, bunch of second sons who had the effrontery to call themselves noble lords. They were just a bunch of antichrist, land-grabbing thieves who ruined a better thing that was the open, publicly owned commons (the inheritance from God to all) regulated by agreement of all for the sake of all. The selfish, coercive ones hated it and killed it.
Have we read vastly more about libertarian capitalism than you have about communes? What have you read about the Catholic orders, the Mennonites, the Hutterites, the Kibbutzim, and other communal-living arrangements? Those examples have been suppressed by the capitalists who don't want the people knowing that the commons is better, because then they, the capitalists, wouldn't be able to lord it over others backed up by their hired guns (the military). Absent military and police oppression, the people would choose the commons for sure. Every honest person knows it. It's also why the rich suppress democracy. It is also why false-libertarians call democracy tyranny. With all the choices put on the table and with everyone on the planet having an equal, uncoerced vote, the commons would win by a huge majority.
The capitalists and false-libertarians are against putting every option on the table and letting each person on the planet decide: Free to choose (the free market of which idea to buy from all ideas not just those dictated by the false-libertarians), something the knowing liar, Milton Friedman, was against, not for. That's because the capitalists and false-libertarians are against God.
Remember, Milton Friedman aided the dictatorship in Chile that literally beat capitalism into the people, intentionally killing many. Friedman was a hypocrite. His position was and is hypocritical. He was not for free choice: Free to choose the real God. He was for lying, forcing others, and calling that freedom. He was no better than the neocons and false-Zionists: All liars, just beating around the bush. That's what they do. Get to the point.
In anticipation, please don't use the tactic of trying selectively to defeat something Jesus said and then run away like a coward. Stack your philosophy up against the sum total of Jesus's theology and be prepared to convert when you see that your philosophy is dead and cannot bring forth.
We aren't saying that we want exactly what the Catholic orders, Mennonites, Hutterites, and Kibbutzim, and the like have done. They don't though represent greater, selfish waste, degradation, or pollution than does the capitalist system in general, far from it. What we want though is even better, even the best. We want even less and even no selfish waste, degradation, or pollution. We want evangelism for the Christian Commons. The capitalist though, seek to block us. They want endless streams of money that they put way above unselfishness and rising to purity that is without money (Heaven).
As for The Great Lakes you mentioned, the lakes have not been treated as the Christian Commons of which we speak or seek. The Great Lakes were polluted by capitalists. Didn't you know that? I was born between The Great Lakes and grew up on the Detroit River in the 1950's. I lived less than a block from it. We weren't allowed to swim in it, because of highly toxic industrial pollution from the couldn't-care-less capitalist factories, not from environmentalist communes. The Real Liberal Christian Church Communes aren't about dumping toxics into rivers and lakes rendering them too toxic for swimming. Those factories wanted to continue the dumping. It was the environmentalist movement that slowed them, via the coercive system (not the solution, just the lesser of evils). The capitalists would have continued. Their hearts are that selfish. Their minds are that dim. The environmentalist movement has been the lesser of evils.
Human beings are not immutable
Your position has its foundation with the argument that the nature of human beings is immutably selfish. However, if you really believed that, you wouldn't feel compelled to convince people of your position against ours.
You prove our point by arguing against us. The selfish argue that all are selfish. The unselfish say no. We are here. We exist. More can join us. That's what frightens the selfish. That's why your false-shepherd, Frederic Bastiat, was for coercive force against those who voluntarily want to be Christians, after Jesus and his disciples who taught and lived communism and collectivism.
We refute the doctrine that human beings are immutable. The very fact that the plutocrats spend millions and billions trying to reinforce (condition in) selfishness shows that they don't even believe for a second their own doctrine. It's hypnotism. They have everyone believing that what is there is not: God.
Rather, be responsive to the suggestions of Jesus Christ so you may wake up from the falsehood planted by the liars. Don't you know deep down inside that Jesus's way is the right way and that the evil ones simply pay to convince people that what is there for them isn't there for them: That what can work will never work because it goes against human nature? Sure, it won't work for people who reject it. Well, capitalism isn't working even for those who accept it if one correctly defines the term "working." Capitalism is an unmitigated disaster coming out from the satanic heart, the devouring spirit that does not bring forth the real bounty but rather false-value.
Take your own advice, and "educate yourself before writing anything else."
You automatically start arguing against Christianity as if it is the government of the United States. We received your link to the story. It isn't a relevant argument against us. We say both the U.S. government and you are wrong. The U.S. government and capitalism both do lots of harm. Neither practices the New Commandment. Those of mammon at the time of Jesus hated him and murdered him, and the argument continues. The same spirit is behind the mammon of false-libertarian capitalism.
It is the capitalists above all else who have used illegitimate militant force (Pentagon and other so-called enforcers) of the false state (Godless) to coerce (threaten, beat, arrest, imprison, torture, maim, murder, etc.) others into living under unrighteous mammon.
God bless you, Bryan, with the truth that self-interest apart from God (whose interest is every one of his lambs and sheep) is evil and doomed.
Give and share all with the spiritual family.
Feed the lambs and sheep.
Do the New Commandment: The only path, the real law.
Jesus represents the real libertarian. Why deviate?
The measure of the person is not his sole property but rather what he shares. Jesus shares in all that is God's, which is all that matters.
Turn the other cheek always.
Be sexually pure (harmless).
Repent, convert, and atone (Christlike). Be part of the solution and not the problem.
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)