Many things to which the libertarians point may be taken in ways other than they seem almost always to take them. Jesus had a great saying concerning this:
Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. (Matthew 6:34 KJVR)
Everything the government does is not about becoming a fascist or totalitarian-Communist state. There are entities within government that are not on board with fascism or totalitarian Communism. Everyone in government is not completely duped by the plutocrats into doing the plutocrat's bidding. The plutocrats do want to control, and they do control in a certain sense; but the libertarian small fry jump to conclusions and then pile on. That's not the right approach to defeating the plutocrats. Speculation must be stated as such and not as proof. My point here is that the truth is bad enough.
Those who know the verse will perhaps remember the context concerns one not worrying about provisioning oneself but rather focusing on faith in righteousness that is God where provisioning follows.
That runs contrary to the whole tenor of libertarianism that is hyper-prepared: Stocking up on everything. Societal lack of faith is so vast that those with huge faith have huge negative spirits/undeserving spirits surrounding them ruining the crop.
An example of jumping to conclusions concerns GoDaddy pulling the plug on ratemycop.com when traffic spiked at the site beyond the economy-server deal for that site. The libertarians jumped on GoDaddy as if they know for a fact that GoDaddy was censoring. The WIRED article about it says GoDaddy is quick to censor, but I certainly haven't found that to be the case. You're read this controversial site while it sits on a GoDaddy server. I've been censored all over but never by GoDaddy.
(See: " ," by Kevin Poulsen. WIRED. March 11, 2008; and the comment section (concerning the article) on InfoWars. March 12, 2009.)
Perhaps if they had it to do over again, GoDaddy might handle it differently such as via throttling the traffic to ratemycop.com and notifying the site owner via an automated email and phone call/message with a follow-up human call. Anyway, the site owner could have moved up to a higher capacity GoDaddy server plan. I say this in the spirit of fairness. Let's not fail to place people and groups into their proper relative positions. There are the absolute extremes and then there is everything else in between falling someplace along that infinite spectrum. God is the extreme good. GoDaddy is not God. They don't claim to be. They are not out machine-gunning people though. That ought to matter within the mundane context in which the libertarians are dealing. They are not the epitome of the oppressors of constitutionally protected political speech, are they? Where's the real evidence after the facts come out.
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)