The term or expression "politically correct" and "political correctness" being the same are ill-defined, false-hearted concepts. It means different things to different people depending upon the time, place, and other aspects that set the context.
There is of course something that is truly politically correct: God's state. I won't go on about that specifically here, although everything I'll be writing will be connected with it and designed to bring it forth.
What I want to point to right now is the issue of the Chinese Communist Party and Tibet. The Chinese Communist Party is not Communist or socialist right now. It is a hybrid capitalist-socialist dictatorship. I say that here simply so souls won't be misled into imagining that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) even imagines itself to be Communist with a capital C (meaning a one-party dictatorship of the industrial workers of China modeled after Marxism-Leninism).
Some very brief background: Tibet was ruled by dynastic Buddhism. The Maoists of China invaded and took over in 1950. The Buddhist leadership fled the country in 1959 after a failed CIA-orchestrated (planned, trained, financed) uprising. Their leader is the man referred to as the Dalai Lama (the 14th) and His Holiness (as with the Pope).
Now, most people are well aware of the recent protests in Tibet against Chinese authoritarianism. There have been reports from all sides to one degree or another. The Tibetans have used the timing of the Olympic Games to heighten world attention to the issues involved. The U.S. and other powers have been working the issue as well, both externally and covertly in Tibet.
As one who calls himself a Real Liberal Christian, I am not also a Buddhist. I'm not advocating for Buddhism. I am though advocating that violent coercion is against Christian principles. It is with that understanding that I relate the following:
The CCP is informing all the Tibetan Buddhists that they will not dissent against the policies and practices of the CCP. They will undergo reeducation under the CCP. If they then dissent in any way to any degree if discovered by the CCP, they will be punished. They will be removed from the religion as the CCP decrees the religion and their homes will be destroyed. Other measures may be taken as well.
The Dalai Lama claims that he doesn't want to go back to how things were before the CCP invasion. His feet barely touched the ground for all the bearers literally carrying him around. We don't see him being carried around that way anymore. He says he wants a certain higher degree of autonomy for the region called Tibet and for certain assurances as to the level of freedom of religious conscience and exercise. The CCP sees him as a threat to CCP rule. Well, he is a threat to CCP rule as such rule is now misguided.
The CCP is afraid to allow people to hear positions and to choose without violent coercion or duress inflicted by others. Understand that he Dalai Lama was militant. He had an army that did fight, kill, and die upon the CCP invasion.
What the CCP is attempting to do is co-opt the term Buddhism, just as it has sought to co-opt the term or name Christianity by having officially authorized denominations but nothing remotely Christian.
These measures by the CCP are rejected. They will not stand. The CCP will fall.
International Campaign for Tibet
July 30th, 2008
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)