California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said he is moving "tent city" residents (those stuck in a Sacramento Hooverville) to California's State Fairgrounds (Cal-Expo). Will the state treat the people the right way? Will the people of the state help the homeless via a good neighbor, Good Samaritan policy? The plan is for only 3 months. That's not good. The plan calls for a shelter.

Putting all those people under one roof, if that's the plan, is not a good idea. It's dehumanizing. They need detached units. They aren't all likeminded. ("Schwarzenegger Opens California Fairgrounds to Homeless Camp," by Michael B. Marois. Bloomberg. March 25, 2009.)


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)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Thomas James

      Speaking about the infamous Robot Terminator who is called Arnold Schwarzenegger I just had a conversation with family about him where they were praising him as such a dedicated civil servant because he uses his own money to fly his private jet to commute back and forth to the State Capital and he only charges the state one dollar per year for his salary. Of course I called them on that statement and said that this so called act of charity was but a tiny insignificant fraction of his total wealth of millions and millions of dollars that he has hoarded up for his own personal use at a time when a massive amount of teachers are being fired because of lack of state funding and that we should really quustion the value of these overpaid celebrities and sports heroes.

      Of course I was immediately rebutted and told that Arnold works very hard for his money so of course he deserves it and that I should take an economics class where I would learn that it is a wise investment to pay for top talent because that is what sells more movie tickets.

    • Well, Thomas, your situation is exactly what Jesus was talking about when he said he came to divide. You have members in your family who don't believe.

      Require them to interpret the following in light of their views on Arnold Schwarzenegger and capitalism:

      But if I by the finger of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you. When the strong" man "fully armed guardeth his own court, his goods are in peace: but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him his whole armor wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils. He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth."

      (Luke 11:20-23 ASV)

      "Think ye that I am come to give peace in the earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: for there shall be from henceforth five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. They shall be divided, father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against her mother; mother in law against her daughter in law, and daughter in law against her mother in law."

      (Luke 12:51-53 ASV)

      And he said unto them, "With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: for I say unto you, I shall not eat it, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God."  And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said,  "Take this, and divide it among yourselves: for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come."

      (Luke 22:15-18 ASV)

      How do they read it?

      That's not rhetorical. I want their answers or silence before you. If you have not mischaracterized, you are speaking right and they are blatantly rejecting Christ.

      The real peace is reserved in the end for the righteous alone.

      Tom Usher