Why Do You Kill Zaid?
The West is much more violent than the Muslim world. Millions of Arab civilians have been killed since colonialism began.
By Jürgen Todenhöfer
This advertorial was published in The New York Times by author Jürgen Todenhöfer, based on his book Why Do You Kill Zaid?
November 13, 2008 "Information Clearinghouse"

The above linked article is huge. It is worth reading with the caveats mentioned below.

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)

That does not mean what it is so often misinterpreted as meaning. Jesus came with the sword of truth that is the word and not the metal object used to spill blood and to take lives.

For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. (Luke 9:56)

It is important to read the whole Gospel message.

Also, just because "rightwing" hawks call for the militant destruction of Islam does not mean that all of the criticism against some of the contents of the Qur'an are incorrect.

The article makes many valid points, but it gushes over Mohammed ignoring those things that Mohammed wrote that if followed lead to war between peoples. Mohammed was not Jesus, and Jesus was not a war maker under any circumstances.

The author ignores that Mohammed denied Jesus was even crucified. Please, the author has written a propaganda piece.

This is not to say that people calling themselves Christian have not done the horrible things the author has stated.

I agree with much of what he wrote, but I know that sugar coating doesn't work. The truth is that Jesus was a total pacifist and that Muslims should convert and not attempt to moderate Islam.


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.
    • Geoff Pinkus

      You have failed Christ and have misinterpreted his teachings and his words. Fortunately he may forgive you.

      • Hello Geoff,

        Do you think you haven't failed Jesus here? You have. Are you under the impression that Jesus teaches anyone to rebuke anyone without any specifics? You have been rebuked now and for a specific.

        The only right thing at this point is for you to apologize before attempting to remove the splinter you see in my eye that I don't see and that you haven't pointed out to anyone.

        "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matthew 5:22 KJVR)

        "without a cause"

        Understand, yea or nay?

        May the real truth finally penetrate your heart because it hasn't thus far, obviously.

        Tom Usher