I read Laane's post. She quotes Graham:
The plan is to give members with the highest ratio of paid ad approvals first dibs on cashing out their credits.
My, is that retroactive?
He can reward anyone he wants, but what he's going to end up with will be all commercial bloggers. Bloggers of content not with an eye to monetizing first and foremost will end up sick of seeing buy, buy, buy.
I'm not saying this to get Graham to change. He's heard the words of Jesus and rejected them. If he changes, it will be because he's done the work in his heart and soul. I'm saying this so bloggers with a meaningful philosophy of life rather than hearts of mere materialists and capitalist consumers, will be reinforced.
As for Laane's idea for a dropper's strike, if I were to strike against that which does not meet with my approval, I would be starved to the death of the flesh since I don't hold with the present system of these un-United States.
The only reason it matters is that if I give up and don't persevere, I won't be speaking out and having whatever positive impact I am having. I eat for the flesh solely for the sakes of others. If I didn't care about others, I would have stopped eating years ago. You see, I don't like it here.
I'm not prolonging my fleshly days because I love myself. The only thing I love about myself is that God and Jesus are dwelling within me. That though will go on with or without the flesh.
I avoid spending on many things. I don't work to promote the capitalist system or as a slave to it. I work for USD and I drop for EC that will convert to USD. I do both to translate the unrighteous mammon into the Land and Building Fund of the righteous Christian Commons of the Real Liberal Christian Church.
It is the altar that sanctifies the gold, not the other way around. I'm building the divine altar. Graham is coining the mundane Caesarism.
Graham is gaining Hell, and I'm gaining Heaven.
How many stripes he and I will deserve in the end isn't for me to say. I trust God. If I'm whipped for God and even one other soul turns, then whip away Satan. You murdered my brother, Jesus, who saved me. You're going in the Lake of Fire. You better whip me while there's time because your time is short and you know it.
This Time, I Don't Die,
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)