In order to see Gaza firsthand, retired Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa had to go into Gaza via Egypt as the head of a U.N. Human Rights Council investigation. He was denied entry through Israel. The Israelis shelled a residential neighborhood in November of 2006, killing 19 civilians. They said they take responsibility for whet they've termed an accident. Israel said they were targeting rocket launchers. They further said they aren't anti-Tutu but against the position of the U.N.'s Human Rights Council. Israel says that the Council is one-sided in that it doesn't say enough against the rockets hitting Israel from Gaza. See: "Tutu circumvents Israeli ban." Ynet. May 27, 2008.
Well, why in the world did those calling themselves Zionists claim that Palestine was empty and then move in and push the locals out by force of arms and terror?
Many so-called Zionists (a terrible misnomer, since Zion stands for peace) claim a connection to that particular land, citing The Bible. Of course, anyone bothering to read the Torah will find that Moses explained that the only reason the Jews were being allowed to take the land was because of the utter wickedness of those who were inhabiting it and definitely not because the Jews were faithful or going to become so before losing the land themselves. Moses predicted correctly that the Jews would fail to remain faithful and that they would be driven from the land.
Had the inhabitants been righteous, Moses could never have retained any face whatsoever when sending the Jewish armies into the area to literally exterminate whole nations. He had to say and write that they were irredeemably wicked.
Now, were the Palestinians being wicked in the ways Moses said of the inhabitants of the area back when Moses walked the Earth? Certainly, the Zionists never alleged it in any numbers or with any sticking power.
No, all we see is that the Zionists based their moving into Palestine to take over on lies beginning with the land being unpopulated. Even those whom the Zionists sent to scout out the land came back and reported truthfully that it was already taken. The Zionists though decided that the Big Lie was the expedient plan: Evil.
This makes people wonder about the accuracy of the Jewish story in the Torah. The thing about the Torah that speaks to its greater accuracy than the current-day stories of the Zionists is that the Torah is so self-deprecating, at least for those who read it and don't gloss over that self-deprecation (confession).
Is the self-deprecation just a way of tricking people, adding to the plausible deniability? Is it also a way of excusing falling short?
The Zionists give the Jews a bad name and reputation. That much is sure. They are secular (often atheistic) nationalists who have no business pointing to The Bible to support their unilateral claim on the land.
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)