Why stop with something under the fingernail? When confronted by a possible crime, why not torture the suspect? Why not widen the circle of suspects to contain anyone and everyone until you find the one who knows and tells under torture? If you happen to be mistaken that a crime is about to happen, so what if the innocent are tortured? What difference does that make?

It makes plenty of difference. Torture damages people's souls. It breaks them up. It makes them less whole. It makes them more likely to be a problem for themselves and for others. Torture is evil for that reason.

Also, stooping to the level of those whom one is attempting to thwart blurs the distinction between the interrogator and the suspect if that suspect is guilty. If innocent, then the interrogator is the sole evil at least concerning the crime in question.

However, the U.S. has as one of its Supreme Court Justices a man who says that shoving things under people's nails is only "so-called" torture and should not be precluded as legal. That's the position of Antonin Scalia. ("US judge Scalia on 'so-called torture'," by Raphael G. Satter. Associated Press. February 12, 2008.)

What a mess. We have a Star Chamber judge for an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. What bullying or abuse did Antonin undergo that he's damaged so? Get out the blackjacks and the bright lights. Sweat it out of him. Don't let him sleep or think. Badger him. Threaten him. Get that confession by any means. Beat him up, just as the Chicago Police beat and tortured those Black victims who recently won some court actions now decades later.

Did we do away with that stuff back in the 1950's and early '60's? Apparently we didn't. It continued on during the intervening decades. Apparently it's back with a vengeance. Apparently it's back only much worse with the door attempting to be left open for much, much worse, depending upon how silent the people will remain about it.

Scalia's bought into the Allen Dershowitz, FOX Network, 24, ticking time-bomb excuse for being evil, for going over to the dark side, as Dick Cheney has advocated and done verbatim.

We have the dark side ruling the country, the Empire. Forget about all the talk about the good guys. Good guys don't fall to the temptation to torture. They aren't even tempted. The tempted are the fallen spirits. They are not the spirits in God's real heaven. The real angels of light don't torture.

How can anyone be patriotic (inspired by love for one's country) if one's country stands for torture? The only thing one can rightly do is continue insisting that the country one loves doesn't torture and that the country one loves has been overridden by fallen angels willingly ruled by the prince of darkness.


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.