I haven't posted a new article here since February 25, 2009. I've been working on back-office matters you might say. I've vastly reduced the size and loading time of the site for instance. Although, I still realize that on an economy-server plan, it still takes a long time to load especially with Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser. I'm working on getting the site to load faster without dumbing it down too much. Please let me know in a comment if you notice an appreciable speed-up. Thank you.
I've done some other things regarding spam that I won't go into so as not to educate the spammers. Suffice it to say that I'm exploiting the Bad Behavior plugin now to the max.
In addition to the website improvements, I've also done a great deal of financial-accounting and other reporting work concerning both federal and state governments. It's necessary that I take the ministry to the next level now that the website is fairly well established.
To those of you who use Entrecard, I reduced the feed load on the site. I still show the Top-10 Droppers fulltime though. I've also place ads — with each of my top-ten not as a reward but simply for networking (outreach). They are active users and will know this site when I request to advertise on theirs. I didn't put much thought into it.
On another issue, I'm still running into plenty of political censorship. Various sites and networking communities claim they aren't censoring, but it's purely a semantical stretch on their part. They think that if they block language that offends the sensibilities of some that that isn't censorship. Well, it is.
Understand here that I'm not opposed to censorship, per se. I won't go into a long philosophical or theological treatise on censorship, but I will say that censoring the truth that something is harmful is evil. Censoring the truth concerning the better and best way to be is also evil. I find that many sites deliberately censor truth and righteousness. They want the debate suppressed or to distort it beyond all reason and proper rules for the sake of continuing in iniquity, which includes wars, greed, sexual harm, and all the other manifestations of selfishness (apostasy). They are liars whether they recognize it or not. They are purveyors of falsehood — that which is harmful to the soul in the longest run.
Right now, this site is locked from updating by Technorati. The feed validates just fine. It has all along during the current lock-up. The rss feed is not the issue. During this current 30-day blockage, I've submitted three support tickets about it. Also, manual pinging hasn't done a thing.
I've been through this with Technorati countless times before. On several occasions, this last one included, the indexing actually went backwards. They removed already-indexed posts.
The simplest explanation is that someone or some group who/that stands against what the Real Liberal Christian Church is about
- Total pacifism
- The giving-and-sharing, moneyless economy
- Complete sexual harmlessness — zero harm: no wittingly causing or spreading of any diseases whatsoever
submitted a complaint to Technorati (or maybe it was a computer filter). That triggered a pause (automatic?) in indexing and updating the posts. The site was placed in a list of sites "flagged for review." When I noticed that the site wasn't updating and asked for a manual update, someone looked at the latest posts and removed them and did not turn indexing and updating back on but left the Real Liberal Christian Church locked out while not communicating with me about it at all. Technorati has never explained their reviews of this site. I think I've only dealt with a live human once or twice and that was concerning a bug in the rss feed that I finally solved.
My position is that a site should never be locked before a human looks at it and that in any case, a clear and reasonably detailed explanation should be given to the blog owner(s) with an appeal method provided before a site is locked or banned. The exception would be flagrant violation and never marginal, questionable, or merely debatable material. Would this always remain subjective? The threshold of flagrancy varies from soul to soul.
Some people believe XXX, pornographic material should be allowed everywhere and anytime. Some people believe Christianity should be banned. Some people think women should be in chadri burqas (totally covered, even their eyes).
From a Christian standpoint, the issue ends up being one of coercion. Jesus doesn't teach us to force others. It's taken me decades finally to learn that — I mean really sink in. I knew it before but rationalized it away at best.
Self-censorship is right. We don't have to provide a platform for evil though either.
You will see from the comment rules for this site and my history of dealing with commentators that genuine debate is accepted. The point where I stop approving comments is when the other party has repeatedly refused to answer direct points. Jesus did that too (he wouldn't give answers to others who refused to be honest in their communications). It's the proper standard.
When I cut someone off from further commentary it constitutes censorship. There's nothing wrong with it at that point. It would be a lie to call it something else such as "editing" (a euphemism when used to deny censorship). It is editing, but it's also censoring.
Anyway, it certainly isn't unreasonable to conclude that people abuse the complaint process on many of the major blog-networking sites.
Some people are submitting complaints out of spite rather than genuine concern. How do I know this? How many people are there on the Internet with access to the complaint button? How many people deliberately set fires as arsonists?
In addition, society has a strong tendency to fall to promoting a false sense of civility while sterilizing mass murder, such as looking the other way while the U.S. uses remote-control weapons with mundane impunity and without any due process of law. Here's society saying that boys in elementary schools may use the girl's restroom if those boys claim to identify as girls while the U.S. Air Force is murdering innocent boys and girls in other lands. Consequently, the sensibilities of people who do huge harm to others is protected against any words of truth that would reduce their self-esteem or egos or false-sense of justification for their reprehensibility (selfishness and harmfulness; always the same thing).
The same society that doesn't care to concern itself with the harm of certain sexual behavior and rather approves it is the same society that murders so easily. There's a direct correlation. The hypocrisy is the problem. Remove it, and the problems disappear.
Now, I really didn't set out to write about Technorati and this site. I'm not venting about Technorati or the other sites and networks. It's their site. If they want to act as gatekeepers for unjustified complainers, that's their choice. Those blind to the truth follow each other into the ditch.
For years, EuroYank has been on the Internet exposing imperial-government corruption. He certainly isn't alone in that. There are people though who hate what he's done and work to thwart him. He promotes his blogs too well. If he were selling the American Dream (greed and attending violence), he'd not be censored.
Recently, I started paying more attention to his work. It isn't that I had never found it interesting or valuable enough. I was simply fully engaged in developing the RLCC. Well, in furthering the networking (outreach) of the RLCC, I happened to be working MyBlogLog and came upon EuroYank again. He was one of the "Hottest" communities. So much of his work jibes with mine that I figured I'd try networking with people who had shown an interest in EuroYank's site. Of course, I was under no illusions that there are plenty of people ready to engage in pointing out problems or at least like to read the complaints but who then nevertheless run from the solutions (hence run from the RLCC and Christian Commons Project.)
EuroYank had a huge following on MyBlogLog. If memory serves, it was over 600 users and growing daily. I made some initial contact with about half of them when MyBlogLog locked EuroYank's community. Of course, it was political (but what isn't in the final analysis?). EuroYank didn't give up though. He just created a new site and started up again. He greatly reduced the number of community broadcasts too. Does MyBlogLog have a limit on broadcast messages? I don't know. I've done only one community message the whole time I've been on it. It's a judgment call. If you message too many people especially outside your list of friends, you'll be labeled a spammer and summarily banned.
EuroYank joined Entrecard and put MyBlogLog, BlogCatalog, and Entrecard widgets on his site. I thought those were good moves, although I wondered how long it would be before he'd be censored. It didn't take long. He's run into trouble again but this time with Entrecard.
You'll have to go read his post on it, "To All That Use Entrecard." He saying he's going to sue all Entrecard users; because Entrecard has removed his account and those users, according to EuroYank, are aiding and abetting Entrecard in unconstitutional censorship.
Many Entrecard users have no idea about blogs being banned, especially over issues of free political speech. The other thing is that Entrecard users are mostly anonymous. Many never give their real names or locations and use only dynamic IP's that are not logged at their ISP's on a permanent basis. Suing them all just isn't practicable. Many are scattered all over the planet too. In addition, before suing people, it's expected by the courts that the plaintiff would have made some express demands. What has EuroYank asked Entrecard to do? What's been the response? Entrecard's stated policy is not to listen to other users defending a banned blog or blogger.
What are Entrecard users to do, quit using it on principle? Well, Jesus could have stopped preaching in the synagogues on that level of principle. He had a higher level with which he was concerned though.
I must say that it is difficult to know just how far in or out of the system to be and on which levels. In thinking about such things, I always think about how Jesus was, and remains, both in and out. He's always outside the worldly system in spirit even when he's right in the center of it all speaking and doing his deeds. Of what was he and is he a member? He taught in the synagogues, but did that make him an accomplice in his own crucifixion? I don't see it that way. He was in the synagogues networking with the people in a way that was the downfall of the system that is still growing even as it is still dying.
About EuroYank though specifically, I don't see anything on his site that merited a complaint let alone removing his account. I must qualify by saying that I have not read all his posts. I have viewed even fewer of the linked videos (due to bandwidth issues and time constraints). However, if what I have read is pretty much his standard fare, I would conclude that Entrecard's line needs to be moved so that the subject matter on EuroYank's blog would not be grounds for removal.
One thing I'd like to emphasize in a very mundane way for the broadest audience is that these public/private networks would really help themselves by being specific and open about their reviews and affording blog owners progressive-disciplinary processes with clear appeal avenues. They should allow for public feedback too. It's up to them of course. What they won't do is please all the people all the time. Frankly, in the interest of being "safe," they are offending higher callings.
I think about Raed Jarrer being told by JetBlue airlines to remove or cover his t-shirt that read in English and Arabic, "We will not be silent." The airline is a corporation. It isn't the government, per se, but they don't have a right to violate a private citizen's civil rights of free political speech such as was on Raed's t-shirt. Lunch counters don't have the right to refuse to serve Black people. Those are the rules that are supposed to be enforced via coercive means under the U.S. Constitution. It's not Christian though. The idea of preventing Raed and Blacks from being discriminated against is good. The coercive part though isn't. Is coercion a necessary evil? Jesus thinks it's an evil that needs to be overcome on Earth and in Heaven. I agree. Do you agree too? That's not rhetorical. Leave a comment that you agree unless you're afraid, in which case, you still aren't safe or saved.
So, go read his post and the comments (I added mine), and chime in.
I'm sorry about EuroYank's situation vis-a-vis the U.S.A. I'm sorry he can't speak out in Europe either without facing indefensible laws.
The people get what they allow and prohibit.
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:18-20 KJVR)
If this doesn't tell you that there aren't two real Christians acting in unison on the planet, you aren't reading it. You can't see.
By the way, I've seen quite a bit of commentary now on the Internet concerning this issue of EuroYank and Entrecard. I want to point out to everyone that there is one huge difference between Entrecard and most other sites and that concerns the monetary value of the Entrecard Credits that are used in bartering and as a medium of exchange (money) and are even sold for legal tender. There are huge tax ramifications involved.
The IRS and many individual States expect every U.S. taxpayer to declare bartering income and the dollar value so "proper" taxes may be paid. The IRS could come in to Entrecard and change the whole affair, at least for a while.
All of the RLCC's credits belong to the Church, which is non-profit and tax-exempt. For-profit bloggers are not in the same situation. Even non-business bloggers though are gaining dollar-denominated EC and exchanging those credits for advertising space and using it to buy and sell ad space and other goods and services on Entrecard's site.
Also, when one is banned from Entrecard with a huge EC (Entrecard Credit) "bank" account that has been earned (worked for – many hundreds/thousands of hours for some clickers/droppers), it is questionable as to whether or not Entrecard owns those credits. Banned bloggers could file a class action suit against Entrecard. People do such things under the guidance of go-getter lawyers.
Also, what kind of documentation does Entrecard keep concerning banning blogs? There are people right now where their blogs are their sole means of any support. A blogger denied equal access to a commercial site such as Entrecard could make a case for monetary losses and pain and suffering and the like.
I'm not saying these things here to cause trouble. I'm just pointing out that lawyers would argue these issues pretrial and then before the court. These things are not decided until the highest court bangs the final gavel.
I hate all of this sort of stuff. It all stems from selfishness and the system. Jesus hates it too. We all need to rise above all the me, mine, more crap. It's why I use Entrecard — to speak directly with people of, by, and for the system, just as Jesus spoke to the tax collectors and prostitutes, etc.
We need the Commons, not more dog-eat-dog.
Posted by: Jawsome
On: 03-07-2009 05:26 PM
I was the moderator that deleted his account. It was deleted because I had received 4 TOS violation reports of people who had been personally offended by the content displayed on the blog. Whether image or text be the case, it is still offending entrecard users. We value our users.
Posted by: Jawsome
On: 03-07-2009 05:30 PM
There is no ban attached to said users account. He blog listing was merely deleted. Which is not permanent. He may reapply at any time and his blog will be sent through the approval process. ...
Okay, here's what the people who really want to know, want to know. What image(s) or text "personally offended" whomever reported EuroYank's blog. That information should be made public. I want to go look at the alleged, and thus far needlessly undisclosed, evidence to evaluate it in light of the TOS (rules). Also, repeatedly in the forum thread, people made clear that they want to know exactly where the line is.
Now, this is coming down to a "fight" over what constitutes "hate speech" among other things. You will notice in the thread that "hate" is specifically mentioned. What aren't we to hate? Are we not to hate, hate? It's an impossible concept. I hate war — now what? Do I hate military killers? It's a contextual question. On what level is the question being asked? I hate what they do. Jesus says we are branches (figurative in a sense and literal in another) bringing forth fruit. It is either good or rotten, somewhat or completely and depending on how much one is given to understand just how perfect, perfect is. Jesus says you shall know people by their fruits that is results. So, you know a killer or murderer by the dead body(s) of the innocent. Are there dead innocent children killed by military troops? Of course there are. Do I love those troops? Again, it's contextual. I love them on the level Jesus loves them — loves the iniquitous for their potential to turn from evil that is confusion. Look, that's the whole point of EuroYank. He repented of what he was involved in, in the Vietnam War. He did the right thing turning from that and repenting of it. EuroYank hates fascism. Is that bad? It's not bad in my Good Book.
I'm not being esoteric here or cryptic. I'm in earnest. This is the conversation that the whole world needs to, and will, have. The language needs to be, and will be, set straight.
This whole "hate speech" thing is very poorly explained anywhere, including by the U.S. federal government and in Europe, where it actually started growing so-called legs.
One of the commentators in the forum thread brought up the threshold of inciting violence rather than simply using the alleged and theoretically possibly cunning sensibilities of some interest groups. Several different groups were raised: Homosexuals, Zionists, Jews, and the religious (brought up in the context of those who preach against "sin," such as yours truly).
The thread has begun to take on the semblance of some intelligent discussion. The moderator(s) are beginning to rise to the occasion, somewhat.
Here is what must happen, which still won't please everyone. They must define the terms being used. They'll have to do it in legalese while being at the same time as plain-language as possible. That's the best mundane solution. I won't even begin to discuss the divine level right now.
I am adding here my original comment over on EuroYank's post.
Says: 7:37 AM
Is that the sum total of the communication you received from Entrecard? I can't tell which aspect(s) of their TOS (including "Blog Quality Standards") they believe you've violated. It's not much to go on.
How do you get around the fact that you accepted Entrecard's TOS when you applied for an account?
Also, you'll have to identify yourself. You can't sue as "EuroYank."
I didn't join Entrecard to gain for self apart from God. I joined solely to increase the number and range of eyes on the words on the Real Liberal Christian Church website for the sake of the Christian Commons Project – to do the right thing – repent and atone. You joined to get eyeballs and ears too and not for money.
I see that you still have a link to the Nazi war videos. That blog is not something that should be illegal. Add a strong, unequivocal disclaimer at the top. You aren't a Nazi or a fascist. You're not an apologist for Nazi war crimes.... You're not a "holocaust denier."
If the problem is with YouTube and other links to possibly copyrighted material, then that's a huge problem Internet-wide. YouTube doesn't make people say where the clips originate and what the copyright is on them. They do remove copyrighted clips, but people pop them back on again. Average users have no way of knowing what's "protected" versus what isn't.
As for "discrimination" and "hate speech," those terms are as nailing Jell-O to the wall. Who knows what the complaint against you might be concerning such concepts?
If you do sue, and I'm not recommending it (it isn't Christian to be aggressively defensive), through legal discovery, you'd be able to find out who made the complaint(s) and exactly what was alleged.
I certainly can relate to your situation. I was censored on OpEdNews for being "offensive" to homosexuals even though I was quoting Jesus Christ. The RLCC site has been "flagged for review" so many times on Technorati that I've lost count. It is "flagged" right now. It has been for about 30 days running. Plenty of sites and blogs have refused to approve my comment submissions.
We all have our limits. The only thing I care about is people wittingly and willfully censoring righteousness. That offends me. I won't kill them, punish them, or lose any sleep over it; but they won't get into my Heaven if I'm given a say over it. Oh, if they turn, repent, and atone that will be different. If they show mercy and forgiveness, that will be different. As for the ones who don't give a damn about those things even after having been told in no uncertain terms, I won't stand up for them.
Do what the Holy Spirit moves you to do, EuroYank. Make sure it's the Holy Spirit though for sure. Don't fall for temptation. Deliver us from evil.
God Bless the Universe,
EuroYank is now saying that he was never planning to file a lawsuit. I hold my peace (withhold, reserve judgment). He's wrestling with issues of consistency. That's where Jacob gets his name "Israel." God is nothing if not consistent.
We all are to wrestle thusly. It's why Jacob had a change of heart, repented, and made amends with his half and older brother who received him graciously, with no bitterness. Bless both of their exemplary hearts. It's why Jesus came here, to show more of that light, infinitely to magnify it. He is blessed above all for being the greatest blessing of all.
We may join but not exceed the Master who is God. Wholeheartedly, Jesus bows, kneels, and completely prostrates himself to God totally joining God as one thereby. God is this spirit.
What concerns me most is the welfare of the lost sheep and broadest public. Taking care for them will help EuroYank the most anyway.
The heat of righteousness was being turned up on many consciences to discover and openly to reveal exactly what on EuroYank's site was "offending." Now that EuroYank has bowed out (with whatever degree of face-saving), there is less mundane compulsion for exposing the mindset(s) of the complainer(s) (perhaps four EC members).
Which of the complaints, if any, was to cover evil (harm) for evil's sake versus for good cause (objective/subjective)? Specifics help truth-seeking people to better discern. Specifics can be used by the enemies of truth as well.
To what degree is each of the complainers uneducated or undereducated (unaware) concerning the radical evil deliberately exposed by EuroYank on his blogs?
Perhaps Entrecard has made relatively huge strides during its internal deliberations in conjunction with consulting with outside sources and as a result of its moderator meetings. Perhaps somewhere such news has already been released. My motive is not to scoop mundane news stories. I want to get at the root cause of evil and root it out in total once and for all. That is done in patience and with perseverance.
In the process, we mustn't curse anyone. That's counterproductive. Cursing is the dark side. I am not from that side. I am not for that side. That side hates me. It seeks my fall. It seeks to kill me. It wants to devour my soul forever. The same applies to you. It applies to each and all. Evil (its very essence) wants to devour each and all. It wants to fracture. It wants to bring pain and suffering. It wants to prevent healing. It wants to prevent the life of Jesus and God. It wants death. It is death. It is eternal death.
The object isn't to cause people to fall but rather to enlighten and lift. We cannot force others to clean their own hearts, for such attempted force is also a fatally flawed tool belonging solely to that same dark side. We don't damn souls. We don't judge and condemn them. We do though discern evil results. We do discern the evil causes.
We are instruments, witting and not. Our natural and adopted spirits struggling in our hearts, minds, and souls are reflected outwardly. It all does impact for better or worse, for light or darkness. We can defile ourselves and offer up rotten fruit encouraging others also to partake, or we can cleanse our temples within (just as Jesus did) and offer up only good fruit to all others no matter how defiled they may be (wanting of truth and surely in need).
This is a small neighborhood of existence, but it has eternal, infinite ramifications.
How may Entrecard become a perfect tool rather then a blunt object for dividing the true from the false? In very truth, it cannot while remaining unconverted that is not fully reborn in the spirit of Christ. This is why we go repenting into the center of this worldly world.
For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad. (Luke 8:17 KJVR)
Just as with Entrecard (a microcosm), the economic system of the United States and of the Earth right now cannot bring forth true bounty while remaining unconverted that is not fully reborn in the spirit of Christ.
This worldly world is ruled by the spirit of darkness. See the light, and the light and nothing but the light will come to rule.
I left the following post "" over on yesterday:
Hi Marc and All,
I see that Entrecard removed the forum thread concerning EuroYank. I went there with the intention of visiting the blogs of some of the better-comment authors. Google had some of it in the Google cache, so the removal was recent. I decided not to spend the time going through cached pages – a matter of priorities and peacekeeping.
As you've pointed out, EuroYank removed his blogs. He does have a new blog though with an anti-NWO theme. He apparently changed his mind or didn't mean it about not blogging anymore. God can read his mind. I'll leave it at that.
As my posts and comments explain, I'm not opposed to censorship, per se. I practice it as consistently as I am given to comprehend. It's always a judgment call.
I have been censored. The rules of the places where I've been censored hold out that those who own/run those places have that right. I submitted content on that basis. Do they have that right? Whose perspective ultimately controls? They have been given the appearance of freewill choice for the time being. Regardless, there are consequences for everything. That's the nature of righteousness.
This all goes to the heart of worldviews. I stand for perfecting. I believe/know Jesus has this worked out.
I have been censored by capitalists, warmongers, homosexuals, false Christians, false Zionists, and others and all because I published/submitted clear refutations of their various positions. They do not want those un-refuted points taking root in the public consciousness. They mask that behind deliberately vague and inconsistent/hypocritical rules. Various people can rationalize banning anything that ostensibly offends the greedy, the violent, and the sexually depraved (defined in real Christianity as selfish and harmful). They can censor anything under the guise of "hate speech," as if they don't hate me, what I'm saying, and the one moving me to say it.
I censor/have censored those who don't directly address my points. I warn them about the standard. Is that unfair? I have also instigated a first, last, and real name-policy concerning comments on the RLCC site.
Real Liberal Christian Church
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)