Oh, the "liberal" (not really) Baptists are great at telling the self-styled conservatives that those conservatives are ignoring Jesus when it comes to the subject of torture (in light of the Golden Rule), but those self-styled liberals turn a blind eye to Jesus themselves when it comes to the issue of homosexuality and fornication and marriage. Jesus is very clear that he opposes fornication, and since fornication is sex outside marriage and homosexuals can not be married as Jesus uses the term, it is incontrovertible that Jesus holds against homosexual behavior. Besides, homosexual behavior is harmful to those involved. ("Homosexuals: What they ignore.") It spreads its harm. How could Jesus ever be in favor of that? It's not practicing the Golden Rule to be practicing homosexuality; therefore, "liberals," be consistent. Quit pointing to the hypocrisy of the conservatives while ignoring your own. Learn real ethics. Don't make it up as you go along to suit your selfishness.
The liberal Baptists are correct that the majority of conservatives (especially Southern, Evangelical Baptists) have been ignoring Jesus when it comes to torture. They've been ignoring him when it comes to greed, selfishness, violence, sex, and quite frankly, everything. How can I say this? Well, even while individuals among them do turn to Jesus intermittently, in general, they turn away more often.
Neither the liberals nor conservatives (misnomers both) have been bringing forth even when given the clear and plain opportunity. It's very sad.
Even though the liberals do more calling for giving and sharing, they call for more coercion to get it done. That goes against Jesus as well.
Now, plenty of the "top" liberal and conservative so called intellectuals come here and read what I'm writing. They then go on their way trying desperately to pretend they never saw it. They continue on being highly selective in applying the Golden Rule and all the rest of Jesus's teachings. They don't have the courage to leave comments here either agreeing or attempting to refute my position that comes directly from God on this.
This will not work. Either you apply them as consistently and honestly as you can, or you're willfully sinning. There is no way out of this, and I'm glad about it and sick about those souls who aren't.
By Robert Marus
Thursday, 11 September 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)