Sure, Tom's piece was a direct hit at me, I'm the only EC'er [Entrecarder; user] that has been on the bandwagon for Libertarian causes.... ("All in the Family; My Friends at Entrecard are on a Mission," by Marc Chamot. What I Think?. March 27, 2009.)
This is for my brother, Marc.
I never noticed that you're "the only EC'er that has been on the bandwagon for Libertarian causes." Is that right? I'll take your word for it.
I can see how you might think I was writing with you in mind in particular. I'm assuming that's what you meant. There is another way of taking what you wrote though.
Anyway, I was writing with Alex Jones and his followers in mind and with all the Ludwig von Mises, Austrian School crowd in mind too. I've had many Ron Paul followers visit the RLCC site. Some have left comments. Some incorrectly profess Christianity. I've had a "debate" on Facebook with a paid employee of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (stubborn; his nickname suits him: "Donkey").
It was with all of them in mind that I write about libertarianism, the definition of which is an open bone of contention amongst those who call themselves such.
My heart actually goes out to the small fry. I don't use the term as a pejorative since I'm a small fry too. All Christians are small fry even though each small fry is as valuable as all the others combined. That's the true nature of Jesus's message. That's why we won't torture anyone to save the whole world. We'd save it but lose our souls. We'd be dead of the Holy Spirit. We'd be faithless in the ultimate, divine sense. We'd be thinking with the lesser evolved and more selfish portions of our minds.
My heart even goes out to the plutocrats (wicked usurers), who have duped everyone from one end of the false political spectrum to the other. It also doesn't matter if one adds another dimension to the spectrum and comes up with a four-cornered plane such that there are supposed left and right libertarians. All are duped to one degree or another. I will though let them go after sounding the alarm because Jesus lets them go. I want to follow his path.
The current system is corrupted through-and-through. Absolutely nothing on that false spectrum or visionless plane will fix it. Jesus's ideal solution resides outside that old wineskin.
Neither do men put new wine into old wine-skins: else the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins perish: but they put new wine into fresh wine-skins, and both are preserved. (Matthew 9:17 ASV)
Do you see what that means in terms of the system of mammon?
I offend not just you. I know it. The offense though should not be taken. That's the point. What I'm calling for ultimately harms no one. It doesn't harm another to become unselfish. Believing that it does is simply a matter of misdefining. It is simply a matter of failing context. We are talking here about systems, whole systems. Which one, if consistently held, would bring the New Heaven and New Earth? That's what I'm writing about. I'm interested in perfection, and I don't believe people are immutable. I know they are changeable. I'm a case in point. I prove my own position, which is the same position Jesus holds out, isn't it?
Marc, you are what people call "civil." What is that though ultimately? I believe in good manners. I believe strongly in thoughtfulness and considerateness. What though does one do with those who use their horns (military power) to butt, to steal land and resources, to murder, and to do all manner of other evils, even blaspheming God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit by claiming God is on their side in such gross iniquities? Of course, we are to turn the other cheek. Only Dick Cheney (the mundane, proven lying, imperialist/pseudo-neoconservative) says we are not to do that; therefore, I say Dick and his ilk are antichrist (against the message and exemplary life of the surely historical Jesus). He is by definition. He called upon the American people to turn to the dark side (verbatim). What Christian having the courage of his or her spiritual convictions would worry about being perceived as being impolitic and not sound the alarm?
I am attacked and censored for this. I am though attacked when I come in the name of Jesus and of God. The Ludwig von Mises Institute refused to approve my rebuttal comment. I post that comment on the RLCC anyway though. They were/are intellectual cowards. They didn't have the courage of their convictions. It's telling. We know them by their fruits — the results of their deeds.
This is a long comment, I know. You're worth it though if you will.
Bless You, Marc,
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)