LITTLE FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR PRESS AND NO FREEDOM OF RELIGION IN ISLAMIC AFGHANISTAN

KABUL, Afghanistan — There is little to no freedom of speech or press in Afghanistan. There is no freedom of religion.

It is being reported that a 23-year-old student/journalist, Sayad Parwez Kambaksh, has been given a death sentence for printing something off the Internet and taking it to Balkh University to discuss with faculty and fellow students. The trial was closed to the public and Parwez's family. He was allowed no legal representation. The trial was under a three-judge, Hanafi-law (orthodox Sunni) panel, allowed under Article 130 of the Afghan constitution. He was sentenced to die for violating the tenets of Islam and humiliating Islam. ("Afghan Journalist Sentenced to Death," by Amir Shah. The Associated Press. January 23, 2008. Also.)

The U.S. invaded Afghanistan. It took over. It's still occupying the country. Then why is that law in place? In Iraq, the U.S. didn't hesitate to decree whatever laws it wanted. Why is Afghanistan different? The Church doesn't hold with invasions, but the fact that Afghanistan is occupied by the U.S. and is a colonial possession yet the U.S. doesn't require freedom of speech, press, and religion, is very telling about original motives for going into Afghanistan. It said it went in against al Qaeda, but it airlifted al Qaeda and Pakistani fighters out of Afghanistan and allowed a long convoy of cars and trucks to leave the country. It has allowed and encouraged the heroin trade. It is simply most interested in oil and oil pipeline deals, keeping the nations of the regions down relative to Israel, and making and keeping them all non-nuclear. It is not about freedom and democracy.

It is still all about the Project for the New American Century per Paul Wolfowitz's neoconservative Defense Planning Guidance of 1992 Pentagon report that is based purely upon the Platonic so-called noble lie, atheism, Machiavellianism, Hobbism, Straussianism, etc. It's all a cover for the global Plutocracy. It isn't helpful or useful.

Who's worse, the Muslim Fundamentalists or the Machiavellians? How far will the Machiavellians push things to create pretexts for taking whatever they want from everyone else? How long will freedom of speech, the press, and religion last in the U.S. under these people? How much freedom have we ever really had and how much has already been taken away via mergers, acquisitions, and consolidation under global corporations?

Remember, already more than half of the one hundred largest economies in the world are corporations. They want everything privatized. The Muslims don't. It's against their religion. That's one of the unspoken reasons the Machiavellian capitalist hate them. Usury is against their religion too. The Western international bankers hate that. They want to corner the market. They have anyone neutralized or killed who stands in their way.

Donate


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.