According to an article in The Telegraph, A group of Atheists (or are they agnostics really?) is gathering money commitments or the like so they may order and pay for advertisements on the sides of perhaps 60 London buses. Richard Dawkins, author of, "The God Delusion," has apparently agreed to chip in.


The article quotes Dawkins as saying, among other things, "alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion." Well, hopefully he's bright enough and intellectually honest enough to admit that that statement does not apply to all religions. I encourage thinking. In fact, this bus advertisement cuts both ways. What it will do is cause discussion. That's good for the Real Liberal Christian Church. It is exactly part of what we want.


You see, the very reason Dawkins has a following is because people didn't think. If people had been truly thinking, Dawkins position would have long ago been properly placed where it would have no attraction. Let me explain briefly.

Religions have been started by, and other religions have been taken over by, people who were false-hearted. They did not have the right spirit. They have given religion and particularly Christianity and Jesus and Jesus's God a bad reputation among the ignorant, such as Dawkins. It's understandable up to a point.


There is knowledge that clearly and plainly is closed off to Richard Dawkins. He doesn't believe that, of course. He's sealed within his closed loop. His construct precludes what is revealed to others who are not stuck where he is. He doesn't understand or know that certain things cannot be tested that exist which do not wish to be divulged via testing. There is no way of using Dawkins closed loop to prove within that loop that what is not within that loop exists. Nevertheless, Dawkins insists that only those things can be proven in accordance with testing ought to be considered valid. So, he attempts to sway me that what I know, I don't know.

I don't know that God has worked directly within my life in ways clearly designed to inform me of God's existence and nature, because Richard Dawkins is stuck where such things have never happened in his life. Now, how bright is that? What kind of thinking is involved in coming up with that closed and narrow-minded concept? It is not enlightened.

God has rules that transcend the rules that are limited to within the religion of testing.


Make no mistake about it. It's a religion.

Buddhism is a religion. Not all Buddhists believe in God or any gods yet those Buddhists are still considered by Richard Dawkins to be religious. Dawkins may draw the line in his mind somewhere so that he may claim that he has no religion, but I don't draw the line where he does. Did you realize that others don't have to be necessarily in charge of the meaning of words you use?


The struggle of humanity is one of words. We fight over word meanings. We go to war on account of them. Think "terrorist." Who thinks who is a terrorist? There are Iraqis who think the American military has terrorized the Iraqis. I agree. There are American Iraq War veterans who have repented for their "terrorist" acts on behalf of the billionaires, as those veterans see it. I agree. Word meanings are everything in a certain sense.


So, who or what is God? Does Richard Dawkins have a monopoly on the meaning? Is whatever he is angry against my God? He doesn't know my God. He's angry at something else even though he is angry at my God. That's a paradox. It's reconcilable though via the language of the revelation of Jesus Christ.


So, you make up anything you want to. The point though is that there is still absolute truth. You can come to various ideas, but which of them reflect the ultimate? God is the ultimate. Is this a loop too? Yes, it is. There's nothing inherently wrong with a loop. The problem doesn't lie with the loop. The problem lies with inconsistency. It lies with hypocrisy. To limit hypocrisy and to approach God, you reflect the standard you apply concerning others back upon your own behavior. If you aren't earnestly working toward what you hold out as best, being as honest as possible about the meaning of terms, you're being hypocritical and need to correct your course or path into infinity. Within the religion of Jesus, you can't make up real truth.

Richard Dawkins is angry at what has transpired in the name of religion. That's understandable.


Sarah Palin and George W. Bush and John Hagee and others in their camp believe that God has been in favor of the U.S. invasion of Iraq simply because the U.S. can. After all, what God wants up or down, God simply causes to happen. Well, within a highly qualified sense that's true.


The problem is that Sarah, et al, do not understand that evil rises and then gets what it has coming. You see, the Calvinists (who have had a huge negative impact) are dead wrong to place the emphasis upon predestination in the way they do. There is fate, but it doesn't unfold in the way they imagine. Their minds can't fathom free will and fate at the same time. God doesn't have that limitation. They think in either-or terms too much and to their detriment and the detriment of others. This says nothing about the blatant distortions of Jesus's message they push such as the poor are destined to be lazy and deserve their lot in life. That's not the message of Jesus, although Jesus certainly knew what laziness is. He doesn't call for laziness, but the work he wants done isn't what most people have in mind when they think about productivity.

Well, I won't go on with this here now. This site is loaded with what fleshes out the points made and is being added to often.


God bless Richard Dawkins even though he's in the dark. Do you understand why I would say that out in the open just like that?

Tom Usher

London's buses go to hell
October 22, 2008
The Sydney Morning Herald


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.