Title: "Public Domain: USDA: Praying Before School Lunch, 1936 by Unknown (NARA)."

The more laissez faire the nation-state versus the more sharing and egalitarian (social democratic) the nation-state

  • The lower the percentage of people with healthcare
  • The lower the lowest wages
  • The fewer paid sick days
  • The fewer vacation days
  • The less maternity leave
  • The more hours worked per week
  • The higher the individual productivity
  • The less the workers get to keep for themselves and their families
  • The less other social benefits in general
  • The fewer environmental safeguards
  • The more easily laid off or fired without cause
  • The more and more the society heads in the direction of the Great Depression
  • And the more workers are played off workers in nations that have been driven to deep poverty by imperialistic powers.

The U.S. is the only nation in the industrialized world without universal healthcare.

Now, the laissez faire capitalists complain about being forced into the sharing-the-burden or spreading-the-wealth aspects of the social democracies. They stand on principle that being forced is evil. Why do they take that stand in the face of the facts that workers are better off in those other nations? They will stand on principle even though doing so means that more and more individuals will be cut off by laissez-faire capitalism. They want their way at the direct expense of others.

I don't hold with forcing people to agree with me. Jesus doesn't hold with it either. He lets them walk blindly into the ditch that he has clearly warned them is right there waiting for them if they continue following wrongheaded and wrong-hearted policies and practices.

Given the choice between being coerced by the laissez-faire capitalists or being coerced by the social democrats, I prefer the social democrats. I do though insist, as does Jesus, that there is an alternative to both, which is Christianity as Jesus defines it.

Neither coercive (militantly violent in the end) the laissez-faire capitalism nor coercive social democracy is superior to the non-coercive approach of Jesus Christ.

Capitalist profit sharing is better than capitalists non-profit sharing. Capitalist employee ownership is better than capitalist non-employee ownership. Christianity is better still. Christianity is non-profit employee ownership where everything is free of the charge of any medium of exchange. It is free of money. It is free of taxes. It is pure communism. There is none of the hypocrisy of Marx in it.

The forces of militant coercion take the wheat with the tares.

The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. Matthew 13:24-30.

The militant capitalists and the militant social democrats, socialists, and communists do not separate them. Even as they kill people, they can never be sure whether or not they are killing (murdering) people who may be iniquitous but who would turn and repent if given the opportunity, the knowledge, the love.

And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. Luke 9:51-56.

Do you understand?


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.