OPEDNEWS REJECTS REAL LIBERAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH ARTICLE AS OFFENSIVE AND NONSENSICAL: "RICK WARREN'S DECEMBER 22, 2008, SOUTHERN BAPTIST SADDLEBACK CHURCH VIDEO MESSAGE MISLED AND MISLEADING"

They'll hate this. Will they ban me from submitting anything further to OpEdNews because of this post? It's their mundane prerogative. I certainly won't submit articles unless or until I'm told the policy has changed to allow me to speak freely in a way that respects honesty. I will confine myself to submitting comments if that.

I read OpEdNews in stretches with gaps. I read plenty of different sites from one end of each false spectrum to the other.

Now, OpEdNews is a niche. It wants to be big. It wants to be edgy "progressive" (their definition) while being just mainstream enough to gain big traffic and advertising revenue. I don't want to compromise to become mainstream. I'm here to change the mainstream — save the world.

I've seen a wide range of opinion on OpEdNews but mostly "progressive" and "libertarian" (their definition, not the so-called progressives').

Neocons are allowed rarely but only for the sake of allowing OpEdNews readers to comment against them. So-called Christians are allowed, but I have yet to see any that aren't for homosexual marriage (an oxymoron). It's a litmus test fudged by word choice, as you'll see below.

Well, I was finally moved to submit comments there and then articles. As of the date of this post, I have submitted 3 Articles, 47 Comments, and 3 Diaries. The last submission (an article and my best submission), however, was rejected. That submission was for a cross-post of the article on this site entitled, "RICK WARREN'S DECEMBER 22, 2008, SOUTHERN BAPTIST SADDLEBACK CHURCH VIDEO MESSAGE MISLED AND MISLEADING."

The entire reason given for the rejection was that there "is much about this piece that is patently offensive" and "it doesn't make sense."

Of course, it's OpEdNews' prerogative to reject whatever it wants.

So you see, even though OpEdNews thinks it's promoting free speech and allowing the free exercise of religion and informed democracy, it can't see that it is doing exactly what it's opposition does from the other direction that is censor ideas with which it doesn't agree.

You may think I'm being hypocritical here in that I don't allow anyone to just publish opposing views endlessly. No, I'm applying the same standard and more. I allow comments but for the sake of debate that is over once the opposition has nothing new to add or refuses to respond. OpEdNews isn't holding up that standard of the Real Liberal Christian Church.

What we have in the United States are two poles talking at each other, passed each other, while ignoring everyone else. That's why, among other reasons, things are so bad and getting worse still.

I don't side with or against OpEdNews any more than I do with any of its perceived opposition.

It's just amazing though that what I wrote is "patently offensive" while OpEdNews can host numerous articles that support, and even promote, male-to-male anal intercourse, as if that act is not patently offensive to anyone or to many who have stated, rational reasons for that emotional reaction. I linked to those reasons in my post.

It's obvious to me that OpEdNews, which contains plenty of what is considered by many to be foul, offensive language and concepts, is censoring where they claim not to be. (They do claim it.) I'm not saying here that I would have them exercise no discretion concerning the sensibilities of others. I'm saying that they are exercising an arbitrary double standard probably without cognition most of the time.

I used the term "bugger" in the article. It came up as offensive in the OpEdNews filter. It told me I could still use it. "Bugger" is in the Geneva Bible, which predates the King James and was the most popular Protestant Bible up to that time. Bugger means sodomite. Had I used sodomite, would that have been less offensive? What is the non-offensive "acceptable" term for those who practice the offensive act of homosexual anal intercourse? To bugger someone is to engage in anal intercourse — sodomy (although sodomy also connotes bestiality that is copulation with animals and also male to female anal intercourse). So, I don't know what better term applies if any.

Why is bugger offensive to a homosexual? Is queer offensive? What was that TV show, "Queer as Folk" I believe was the name? I don't watch TV, so I'm very dated in terms of what is on TV — what is allowed. What is offensive about the act to those who engage in it? What kind of word game is being played here by the homosexuals and that editor at OpEdNews?

The term bugger was deemed offensive by heterosexuals when it was used against heterosexuals. How dare you call me a bugger (a homo...) was the attitude of the heterosexuals. That's where offensiveness came in. How it has been twisted! It was a shame to the homosexuals to be caught in the act and labeled "buggers," which they were.

My position is that OpEdNews should have allowed the article as is and allowed OpEdNews readers to leave moderated comments.

The fact is that the particular editor who rejected the article exhibited intellectual dishonesty in doing so.

It is my position that that editor was rather fearful not of offending anyone but rather of the strength of my position. He or she did not want the clear, plain, convincing arguments about the harmfulness of homosexuality being put in front of OpEdNews readers ("Homosexuals: What they ignore"), because doing so would have seriously weakened the wholly deceptive perception management built up by the homosexuals over the last several decades.

It was cowardly and indicative.

The rejection offered no information concerning any appeal beyond contacting that same editor, who didn't understand the article or at least claimed not to understand it. Frankly, if he or she didn't understand it, if it made no sense, what business does he or she have being at the level of editor?

Well, I submitted comments and articles at OpEdNews to reach out with unvarnished Christianity. It was rejected. I will not submit pablum to satisfy the offensive homosexual's sensibilities. Doing so would be lying.

I used the term vomit, stating that I find the homosexual act more offensive than vomit. What am I supposed to do, not tell the truth? Am I to remain silent while humanity goes down the tubes? No, that's not what Jesus calls anyone to do. He calls upon souls to speak out and up, to make stark the contrast so that the worthy will hear and see and choose wisely. The message has not been heard the world over yet. Until it has been, Christians are to continue speaking and doing to find the lost souls to gain (save) their brothers and sisters in truth.

If the homosexuals and their condoners find that offensive, they will go to their god or lack thereof and I will go to my God.

I do not condone homosexuality. I bind Satan. I don't loose him.

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.
    • I think that in this year people should donate more and more money to poor countries because of this economic situation.

      Happy New Year..

      • Hi Chicago...,

        The usurers need to forgive all debts and stop lending at interest. Read the
        Christian Commons if you want to know what God and Jesus want us doing just for starters.

        Blessings,

        Tom Usher

    • Hi Tom.I agree with you about debts and lending at interest. But You know that it wont be changed soon.And on the end it is all about money. There are no way in this days that someone forgive someone on debt when the money are in question.

      As soon as I get time I will read Christian Commons.

      Thanks

      p.s

      Sorry on my bad English

      Till

      • Hi Chicago,

        "Sorry on my bad English." No, don't worry about it. I can't speak or write anything but English. You're doing fine.

        Thank you for returning, reading more posts, and leaving your comments. I look forward to your views about the Commons.

        The wheat and the chaff will be separated. Then we won't need money.

        Blessings to you.

        Tom

    • Hey my friend. I don't know what the hell is happening with websites like http://www.commondreams.org http://www.thenation.com http://www.dissidentvoice.org http://www.opednews.com ??

      I thought that these sites and many other so called "Socialists" websites were socialists. But so much for their socialism, when true socialism means freedom and not banning and controlling your thoughts for exercising your constitutional freedom of speech.

      Those so called socialist sites are not socialists at all, but they have been shifting to the right.

      Oped News now is brining a team of zionist, right wing Clintonistas anti-Hugo Chavez writters as part of their writting team.

      The only news site i visit is http://www.whatreallyhappened.com http://www.informationclearinghouse.info http://www.socialistworker.org http://www.rwor.org and some other real leftist, revolutionary sites who are in favor of the oppressed and real poor people, the real homeless and real poor of USA and the world.

      • To so-called "christian-socialist,"

        You are not in earnest, your site is a poor fake, you are no friend of mine, and you're hiding in the dark. All real Christians will see all of that instantly.

        But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, "Why tempt ye me," ye "hypocrites?" (Matthew 22:18 KJVR)

        You better repent. Your righteousness is right now certainly not greater than that of the Pharisees.

        Why do I say these things while I say I am a communist? Jesus and his real disciples were communists but definitely not Marxists or Leninists, etc. Marx and Lenin spewed and the commentator above spews the lie that is violence. The earnest voice will never say Jesus was a violent revolutionary. All sites that claim Jesus was violent are fakes. They are false-hearted.

        May God bless you with light (truth).

        Tom Usher

    • Yeah but you were not there to see how Jesus was. There are no truths just interpretations of truths.

      I am a revolutionary not a saint.

      • Don't be unintelligent. Listen, focus, hear, and learn.

        You are not Christian, and you do not know my relationship with Jesus.

        No Christian denies Christ's words when he says, "I am the ... truth...." (John 14:6 KJV)

        Feel, think, turn, repent, and atone with your all before it becomes to late for you.