Congressman John Conyers says he's probably the most frustrated person in Congress (both houses) when it comes to getting information from the Bush administration. Why? How many times has he gone to the courts seeking to get a judicial ruling from the Federal Courts compelling the White House to release the information Conyers needs to conduct his oversight responsibilities? How many times has he pulled out all the stops and made it a make-it-or-break-it situation? How many times has he put everything on the line? So far, he has not done it. In fact, he has been told point blank by Nancy Pelosi that he is not to do it.
What would she do it he went ahead anyway? Would she fire him as the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee? How long would she last if she were to do that? Besides, would Conyers rather go out having not stood up, or would he rather go out being fired for trying to do his job on behalf of the people who hired him?
...many people are saying, "Now, wait a second. I kind of own this government. The way this works is I'm the sovereign, the people. They're servants, public servants." It's an interesting sort of phrase with tension in the words. They have awesome powers, but they actually serve the public. And the notion of rule of law being supreme to any individual is the core of what the founders understood, in terms of the tyranny of power.
— Ron Suskind, author of The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism
That's exactly right with one exception that revolves around the issue of violent coercion and righteousness. The only way for the people to assert sovereignty as contemplated above is through violence, just as those with the said awesome powers above use violent coercion to enforce the law or their wills, which unfortunately, especially as of late, have not been the same thing.
The issue is that it is not righteous to use violence to get one's way. It is a violation of the Golden Rule. No one is capable of exercising such judgment or punishment with perfection other than God, and God doesn't even do it for that very reason. Satan does the punishing and gets it wrong through his proxies and surrogates here on Earth. God doesn't want us emulating the satanic spirit. God wants us emulating God; hence, God doesn't do what he allows Satan to do while God points out for our edification that Satan is being a bad example. Nevertheless, look how many still follow Satan even as they imagine they are following God or doing God's will or bidding.
That's why the traditional Peace Churches were more right than were the violent churches. That's why the Church was right not to be partaking in the secular system. It's why the whole movement of the Jerry Falwell's of the U.S. who convinced the "conservative" Christians to register to vote and to run for office lead all those people astray.
The new movement must be to end excessive lust. It must be to end the lust for excessive money, blood, and sex. It must be the movement toward perfection that is greedless, totally pacifistic, and sexually righteous, meaning not harmful at the very least.
We need to bring forth outside the secular system. 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)