Editorial by Ben Tanosborn
In the United States if you aspire to occupy an elective office, from the lowest position at the municipal level to the imperial quarters of the White House, you must have been cleared beforehand as a defender of the American faith, and that entails acceptance and devotion to the dogma of a political trinity: Capitalism, Individualism and Israelism.
And that political trinity belief applies to hopefuls of the two parties something which by default makes it universal under a non-proportional democracy where winner takes all, and our republic becomes not one of the people, but rather one belonging to the elite.
Capitalism must never come into question regardless of how predatory, exploitative or even distant from true free enterprise. If you dare challenge either doctrine or deed in any form, you are immediately tagged as a socialist of sorts and are subjected to all the morbid and ignorant abuse that is associated with an advocacy turned into epithet.
Individualism is a trait that most Americans will swear was DNA-ized in America or at the very least used as baptismal waters on immigrants debarked at Ellis Island long ago. Anyway, it is this rugged individualism, many Americans will say, that keeps this nation strong and free; a doctrine that holds the interests of the individual to be above those of either nation or society. And as a result of this individualism, America has become a nation of armed citizens, and an uncanny proclivity for greed. Just free individuals from government controls and regulations, and society will take care of itself!
Now as for the "third part" of the political trinity, America's total devotion to Israel, well...
Politics at the community, state and federal levels are under constant scrutiny by an all-knowing, all powerful, very passionate and active advocacy pro-Israel with fast standing orders not to allow any politician to be exposed, much less influenced, to anything which might appear to be colored Palestine regardless whether it is controversial or legitimate. This has become our political daily bread, and in my neck of the woods, not to be any different we just witnessed to two such acts in Oregon this past week, one courtesy of our influential newspaper, The Oregonian, the other also coming via this periodical.
On April 22, The Oregonian's editorial, "Gee, thanks, Mr. Ex-president," [former President] castigated our former president, Jimmy Carter, for having talks with Hamas which according to this paper "muddy an enduring dispute in the Middle East." That declaration is, of course, the paper's right to render as an opinion. What the newspaper seemed to have lacked was the grace and diligence in denying the courtesies usually extended in this medium to former American presidents, addressing them either as president or former president, not as ex-president... construed here as if having been impeached or forced to resign. This was an uncalled for insult tendered on perhaps the most decent, moral and fair-minded president in recent times, if not in the history of this nation. It should come out loud and clear as to what this newspaper's advocacy is.
The following day a story appeared in this same newspaper which brings to light the constant occurrences which take place with our politicians as they knowingly or unwittingly put to a test their respect for any one of three subjects in America's political trinity. In this case, Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley, one of several Democrats contending for that party's nomination to run against incumbent Senator Gordon Smith next November, was said to be caught in the Mideast debate as he returned a $2,300 donation to his campaign given last month by Hala Gores, a Palestinian-American attorney, and pro-Palestinian activist, who presumably was told by Merkley:" I don't know if I am doing the right thing or the wrong thing. I want to win."
Although Merkley denies having said that, indications are that he did. Soon afterwards, he presented a position paper on the "US-Israel Partnership" at the request of, yes, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, unmistakably advocating a pro-Israel stance, a position much different from that transmitted months before to a gathering of Oregon Palestinians where he had expressed sympathy, according to The Oregonian, for the suffering of the Palestinians caused by the Israeli military forces. Needless to say, AIPAC appears to be mute on the subject. And so it goes throughout the US...
We wonder where the US may have gone astray in both its politics and foreign policy... yet it is right in front of our noses. Where much of the world sees the need to place controls on a menacing corporate world, America frees it to operate in its predatory ways, often even subsidizing it to do so. Where there is a tendency in the world to reach to each other and slowly start to become our brother's keeper, America renders cult to the worst vices of individualism: impiety and greed. And where the world wants to put to an end to a six-decade hostility pitting Israelis and Palestinians, and do it in a fair and long-lasting way, America just follows the dictates of Israel to have the upper hand in any prospective negotiations.
When will America come to its senses and scrap this inhumane dogma of its political trinity, and treat it for what it is... heresy to brotherhood and peace? Not soon enough!
(c) 2008 Ben Tanosborn
Ben Tanosborn an editor of MWC News.
MWC News, April 24, 2008, 6:08am, obtained via:
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)