Barack Obama thinks it's a good idea to use the violently coercive power of the secular state to force taxes out of people to give those taxes to religious entities just so long as those entities, among a few other things, hire people who aren't part of the religion.
Now I have to tell you that the whole scheme is unintelligent and immoral. First of all, who gave whom the right to use force to collect money from people? It is an arbitrary power given to certain people by themselves. They just took over by force. It was evil. They just assumed they have the right because they were more willing to kill those who disagreed than were those who disagreed willing to fall to the evil of killing for selfish gain.
Okay, most people will instantly point to all the things taxes pay for that they think are good. That is still no excuse for penalizing people who don't want what you want. It's no excuse for arresting them, trying them, imprisoning them, etc. The only proper thing to do is convince people to go along without the threat of violence against them if they don't. That's Christian. Anything else is evil.
The whole reason for Bush's so-called Faith-Based Initiative was to get more tax dollars into the hands of privatizers of his stripe. The arguments against it still apply. There is absolutely no way to separate out a proselytizing effect when an entity doles out government money.
Regardless, why have the middleman? Why have the secular state choosing which religion is worthy? Obama is doing nothing more than compromising for the sake of more votes in the center.
The problem is that the center is way off. So is the left and so is the right. The whole spectrum is off.
The real law is righteousness. Righteousness is the absence of harm. One cannot be uncorrupted and be harmful. One cannot do harm without being harmed by the very act.
The real law is the Great Commandment, the second Great Commandment that is like it, the Golden Rule as formulated by Jesus, and Jesus's New Commandment understood by the full context of everything he both said and did.
The U.S. Constitution is though what the secularists hold up the highest, but it doesn't hold a candle to the Divine Law I just stated immediately above.
Look at the results of the secularist's law that you can't have under the real law. The secularists bring wars. The divine law prevents them. The secular allows for the greedy to amass for self under rigged rules. The divine forbids it. The secular elevates harmful behavior to an equal status with non-harmful and even beneficial behavior. The divine elevates what is truly beneficial and bounty-bringing and nothing but.
Which law will bring forth peace? Which law is loving? Which law is perfect? The divine law will bring forth peace, love, truth, and perfection, for they are all the same thing in the end.
Is this idealistic? Of course it is. Jesus's vision is the ideal. Why aim lower?
Oh, people are forever saying that others won't go along, it's not in their nature, and on and on. That's all just saying things that don't have to be. If everyone says he or she will go along and does, that's that. It will happen. The only thing stopping it is people going around saying it can't happen.
You know the people who go around saying it can't happen are demons. Think about it. Can they change? Yes.
What do you hear from Barack Obama? You hear that democracy has to be put above the conviction that the vision of Jesus Christ is the light. Barack talks compromise. He talks ecumenism. He talks syncretism. His politics are bad. They aren't about bringing forth fruits worthy of repentance (getting close to God). He isn't about fulfilling the Lord's Prayer of bringing God's Kingdom to Earth.
Everyone lauding Barack Obama will be severely disappointed. John McCain though would only serve to disappoint the many also.
The primary elections were foreordained by the plutocrats. They pretty much agreed behind closed doors that they would build up Obama by shining the limelight on him and keeping it there. Naturally they hedged their bets in cased he bombed out with the crowds. The crowds though bought the line.
Now you are seeing all the broken promises. Obama was one thing when he started to run, albeit extremely vague (still is). Now though he is quite another sort.
Americans are duped into viewing the whole process as a filter through which only those willing to compromise ethics can possibly get enough backing by the rich and powerful, greedy and violent, lusting and depraved. Well, you get what you are willing to be duped into accepting and echoing.
Frankly, it isn't this up coming election that is the most important in a long time. They say that about every election just to get you to imagine that your vote matters. It isn't your vote that matters to them. It's your going along with their rigged system that matters to them. It's the next election after this one that will matter.
Will the people learn over the next four years that the whole system is irrevocably broken, that it was broken from the start, that it must be displaced peacefully by the Commons? We need the Christian Commons Project™.
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)