Title: "Christians Don't Wage War." [The kind Bush is waging]

The Rand Corporation has a long history of very strange ideas about analysis. They thought they could create games to model everything. It's not real world and never will be. They are now saying that the War on Terror ought not to be a Pentagon affair. I've been writing that all along. Treating the problem as a civilian law-enforcement issue is definitely the lesser of evils. Of course, since it remains an evil, it isn't the wisest course, just wiser than George W. Bush's approach to life. This says nothing about George W. Bush's complicity in 9/11 and subsequent cover-up. I just said it though.

Strategy Against Al-Qaeda Faulted
Report Says Effort Is Not a 'War'
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 30, 2008; Page A04

The Rand Corporation research/analysis report looks at the psychological ramifications of the semantics of the issue. The report says that the use of the phrase "war on terrorism" is misdirecting. War suggests Pentagon rather than the local police working under the FBI working in conjunction with INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization - ICPO), etc. I don't know whether or not Rand actually named INTERPOL or even the FBI. It is their point nevertheless.

Most important is the impact this all has on civilians under the mundane law. There would be no military tribunals. There would only be civilian court where suspects would receive greater due process and the U.S. would receive less severe rebuke for becoming a fascist dictatorship. Again, I don't know whether Rand mentioned these things.

As for the use of the term war and battlefield and the like, the truth is that it is a war and there is a battlefield. The war is between the forces of light and dark where the light is harmless and peaceful and never violently coercive and the force of darkness is the opposite spirit.

The problem though with the terms war and battlefield is that so many people get mixed up about which connotations are intended. Jesus Christ has won already via the truth of peace. God and he judge no man or women. The truth judges, and Jesus is the truth. How do you reconcile this? It is not illogical.

Peace is the standard against which all are measured. Our behavior marks us. It determines our stature in Heaven. We mark ourselves. We fail to measure up when we know better and go against what we know. It isn't Jesus condemning us. The analogy though of the lord of the land who will have his servants bundled up and burn that which is no good still applies. Jesus is simply saying that that which doesn't measure up will not go in. It's not his fault. It's not God's fault. It's our fault when we listen to and heed the wrong voices.


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.