Source: Associated Press

SACRAMENTO, (AP) — An evangelical chaplain who leads Bible studies for California lawmakers says God is disgusted with a rival fellowship group that includes people of all faiths.

"Although they are pleasant men in their personal demeanor, their group is more than disgusting to our Lord and Savior," Drollinger wrote on the Capitol Ministries' Web site.

The comments drew immediate fire from others in the capital, including the Republican lawmaker who sponsors Drollinger's Bible study group.

Drollinger said "progressive religious tolerance" is an offense against God and causes harm to its practitioners.


Sen. Darrell Steinberg, a Sacramento Democrat who will serve as Senate president pro tem next year, said he found Drollinger's statements intolerant and troubling.

"I think it's important that those of us who find those comments offensive speak loud and clear about it," said Steinberg, who is Jewish.

"There's just no place in civil society for intolerance of someone's different beliefs," Steinberg said. "It's the beauty of this country, that people have the right to practice their own faith."

This is a matter of semantical theology.

I don't know all of Drollinger's position. I do know that there is tolerance and then there is tolerance. One form, which is acceptable to Jesus, is the non-coercive approach. Jesus tolerated the Pharisees in that sense. The other is the sense in which no evil is tolerated within. That means it isn't tolerated within the individual's heart nor is it tolerated within the body of Christ that is his Church. Those who are non-believers in Jesus (Jesus's teachings, exemplary life, spirit, etc.) as the one and only path to God are not to be condoned in that. That's where the terminology separates the people.

The idea that "There's just no place in civil society for intolerance of someone's different beliefs" is totally wrong when that intolerance means not condoning or coddling harmful selfishness and cover stories masking underlying hatred for all the truth for which Jesus sacrificed his life to shine forth into the world.

People who didn't like the leveling that Jesus was teaching and demonstrating murdered him in a futile attempt to silence him. Now, Drollinger has voiced something concerning which he may not be the best messenger or example. I don't know. Nevertheless, within the proper context, Drollinger is totally correct.

If there is a group calling itself Christian or there are individuals calling themselves Christians who are meeting with non-Christians under the guise that other faiths are equally correct, then those are not real Christians. All real Christians know that only Christianity is correct. It is the only right path. All other paths fall short. They won't give credit where credit it due — to Jesus for having done God's will so well: The best.

If we are to solve the problems of the world, we must be as Jesus Christlike as possible. Being anything else won't be good enough. That's just how it is.

Originally from Democratic Underground Latest Breaking News on February 27, 2008, 6:55pm


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.