I know you left this comment before you read the other posts, so it's understandable that you commented this way, not knowing or remembering to consider the full story (it's human to forget but it isn't always good).
I too have left comments and questions for Entrecard. I too have received replies — some very quickly — some more responsive than others.
When I write of Entrecard, I write with more in mind than surface questions. I have in mind also those working for Entrecard who have come here and left comments promising light but who never returned with answers promised. You see, Atniz, you must remember that EuroYank's blog was removed by Entrecard for reasons that were never properly explained. Many people asked very clear questions the answers to which are critical in general to the whole of humanity when taken to logical conclusions.
Entrecard did not answer the questions but rather deleted the entire comment thread in the Entrecard forum.
Now that might not be important to you if you are not seeking ultimate truth. You need to understand though that there are many, many bloggers in the world who are focused on getting at the truth because the truth sets free the oppressed.
What happened to EuroYank on the so-called private Entrecard (always subject to public rules that are the mundane laws — and also always subject to the divine rules whether Graham thinks so or not) is exactly tied in with the mentality that censors those who exposed the torture at Abu Ghraib, which I'm assuming you found absolutely abhorrent and unacceptable and even damning of those at the top (really the bottom in the hierarchy of Heaven and Hell) who authorized it all, which they most certainly did and which is fully documented beyond all reasonable doubt.
Now, why wasn't the global system shut down, cleaned, and rebooted under the real rules of the New Heaven and New Earth? The reason it didn't happen is because there are not sufficient righteous souls to bring forth. Censoring EuroYank (removing his blog because some people wanted to shut him up because he was telling truth about fascism) was not conducive to bringing forth. Entrecard and Graham bear responsibility for that on the Entrecard microcosmic level. Do you disagree?
All the Grahams of the world add up.
Am I faulting Graham above Dick Cheney? No, I'm not. Do I have no cause? Did I not speak to my brother one-on-one first? This site has been here. The powers that be know it. They ignored. Now it's more public and names are named for the sake of the many.
I am though saying that Graham's actions regarding EuroYank facilitate the likes of the Dick Cheney's of the world, which Dick Cheney openly called for America to turn to the "dark side." He said is verbatim. He said "dark side."
I stand squarely against the Dick Cheney of the dark side. I stand for what's left of Dick Cheney before he caved into the abuse that was heaped upon him and hardened him and turned him into a selfish serpent, which he is by Jesus's definition.
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)