TERRORISM, ABORTION, WAR, HYPOCRISY, SARAH PALIN, JOHN MCCAIN, AND BILL AYERS

Many anti-abortionists believe that life begins at the moment of conception. Many believe that the soul is actually created at that moment. The egg and seed are alive before that though. Jesus says he has been (existed) since the beginning with God. His soul he says was not created at the moment of conception but is rather eternal — has existed for infinity. There was never a time when he was not, and that includes before what people call the Big Bang. For Jesus, time is not limited to Einsteinian time-space. Time is more than that. The term "time" includes that which transcends what is thought of as Einsteinian time-space. It does not say that, that time-space is invalid within Einstein's context. However, this post is about the issue of terrorism, abortion, war, and hypocrisy.

There are Democrats and others who have pointed out that Sarah Palin has deemed some actions of Bill Ayers (aka William Ayers) terrorism while she has hesitated to likewise deem abortion-clinic bombers as also being terrorists. Those Democrats mostly raise this as an example of Palin's hypocrisy.

I've seen Mike Whitney's posed question for instance concerning Ayer's actions put into the context of Ayers fighting against the murderous bombing of innocent peasants in Vietnam by people such as John McCain.

Palin balks at deeming abortion-clinic bombers terrorists, because the entities (lives if you hold with life at conception) those bombers are seeking to protect are held by those bombers to be innocent. People who take innocent life deserve to be bombed to stop them is the rationale. So, if she makes allowances for abortion-clinic bombers who believe they are working to stop evil or sin that is the taking of innocent lives, then Whitney's point is that whatever difference there is between the abortion clinic and the Vietnam War, there is still the taking of innocent lives. In other words, why is the life of the fertilized egg (left to the vagaries of nature not deliberately tampered with by we humans) something sacrosanct but only in certain locales?

The many pregnant women whom John McCain and his comrades in arms killed were carrying implanted fertilized eggs in the same way women are carrying them who enter abortion clinics for abortions. If bombing the clinic isn't terrorism, why is bombing John McCain's jet or military base or the White House from whence came the orders or the U.S. Capitol from whence the funding was channeled to murder the innocent pregnant women of Vietnam and of course their fetuses not also terrorism. The fact is that it was terrorism. There is no doubt that John McCain was terrorizing the Vietnamese peasants.

This is not comparing apples and oranges as if they are the same. The arguments for war and for abortion are very similar. They boil down to what is perceived as some greater good or the avoidance of, or elimination of, some problem that would otherwise arise. Each lacks faith in righteousness. Each lays claim to righteousness.

It cuts both ways. If bombing the women is wrong, then aborting the fetus (also foetus) is wrong for the same reason. There are complicating, mundane issues surrounding both. Honest people will look at the positions on both sides just as far as the people on all sides want to give them in a truly conversational manner.

If you are not a Christian, let me state that Christianity is not simply about the mundane, even though there are people calling themselves Christians who don't deal with anything beyond the mundane. The real Christian though is definitely spiritual and definitely knows (is certain) that spirit is over matter — that God can correct every problem.

I won't go into the question now of why God doesn't just instantly provide everyone with Heaven. God's method of teaching isn't to give individual humans and the whole of humanity instant Godliness. To know all is to know the infinite in all directions — good and bad. That is reserved on a need to know basis based upon trustworthiness. Earn it, and you'll receive that grace-filled condition. I'm working on it (asking, seeking, knocking, bringing forth) under God for righteousness' sake.

Donate


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.