The following is adapted from an email I sent today to EuroYank (aka, SauerkrautYankee).

I'm openly anti-homosexuality. How long before that group is supposedly protected on the level of Blacks and other minorities and the RLCC is banned everywhere the way White Supremacist sites are banned? Homosexuals do not have the same basis for complaint as Blacks, etc. Yet, state after state over here is falling. It's like dominos. The Republican leadership in Massachusetts has announced that it will no longer contest anything deemed part of the "culture wars."

As you well know, I'm no Republican. I'm not for any coercive democracy (demonocracy; demon-ocracy is what it is — that's the result — Ye shall know them by their fruits. — Jesus Christ).

This is going to heat up again though. It will because there's no way that people calling themselves conservative Christians are going to back off without a huge Constitutional fight that they should win (surprisingly?).

Freedom of religion is required for the U.S. to stand the slightest prayer of its Constitution continuing for very much longer. It's so important that there might be literal, violent civil war over it. Southern boys and others who are militarists and "Bible Believing" christians, will take up arms. Just how many is the only question. The Pentagon would fall apart without them.

Check out these sites:

According to numerous peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals, homosexual behavior is correlated with higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases, various forms of cancer, depression, drug and alcohol abuse, violence, and suicide, and is associated with lack of healthy bonding with the parent of the same sex.

You may also read my post on the subject: "Homosexuals: What they ignore."

I'm a total pacifist and completely non-secular. I don't vote in any secular elections. I'm completely anti-war and anti-capitalism. So, I'm a "nut," but I'm right.

Does the Christian Commons Project interest you? The Commons needs souls with experience. You do believe in Jesus, don't you? You have read the Gospels and know I'm not making it up that Jesus is a communist in the purest sense – no Marxist garbage.





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.
    • While I respect the right of others to have their own opinions whether or not I agree with them, I think it is ridiculous to think that a group of people doesn't deserve the rights everyone else has because they lead a different lifestyle. While I personally believe that gay people are born that way - it is not a choice - should that matter? Let's say it is a choice. Should rights be denied based on a choice that an adult has every right to make in their own life? If they are not harming anyone - their sexual partners are willing and of the age of consent - what is the problem? Don't they deserve to enjoy a loving and sexual relationship just as much as heterosexuals? Why not?

      And addressing the religious aspect - why should a religion that not everyone follows dictate what rights they do or do not receive? I, again, respect freedom of religion even if I don't agree with the religion, and I'll be honest, I am not Christian. I don't feel that it is right to restrict rights based on religion, or fear, or disgust, or differing opinions. If we continue on that path, we might as well make interracial relationships illegal again, but that leads back to the argument of whether or not homosexuality is nature or nurture... but again I say, why should it matter?

      As for the study results showing higher incidence of depression, etc., in gay people, if you felt like you couldn't be who you are simply because people didn't agree; if you were afraid to show your love for someone because you might be disowned, injured, or even killed just because of that love, wouldn't you be depressed, too?

      On higher levels of STDs... if we say, "Don't have sex with a man because you're a man," we're not exactly teaching the ways of protection, are we? It's like teaching abstinence... if teens are going to have sex, they're going to have it whether or not they're taught how to protect themselves, so teaching them to protect themselves is the best we can do.

      • Hello Stefanie Slater,

        While you consider yourself a "far left liberal," [Stefanie informed me of this via email] I am as radical as it comes. I am a communist, not a Marxist, but rather a real communist, as Jesus was and remains a real communist. I'm a total pacifist. I'm one hundred percent against all forms of coercion and punishment (hence I don't force your friend or punish him or her other than that my theology bothers some homosexuals within – that's conscience struggling). I do not vote in any secular elections. I fall nowhere on the false political spectrum.

        Not hating me is not being a traitor to truth.

        The Christian Commons Project is aimed at bringing forth fully organic communes to feed at no charge.

        So, to be fair to me, you have to fit those things in with my theology of unselfishness where sexual matters are concerned. To know what I mean, you must delve in.

        There's a great deal of semantical work to do in order to be able to not speak passed one another.

        Concerning some souls, it can't be done in this age.

        Peace, Love, and Truth: Real Oneness


      • Hello Again, Stefanie,

        We have to deal with the term "right." You are using it in the most common but therefore lowest sense. Does anyone have the right to harm anyone else? You've clearly suggested here that homosexuality isn't harming anyone. I've addressed that at length on this website and in my other comment above to James Hipps. Homosexuality is not harmless. The claim that it is harmless is false. It is wrong to call it harmless when it is harmful. That's pure, absolute truth. There's nothing relative in it. Either you hold with it or you hold with falsehood.

        As for your position concerning religion, you are addressing false Christians who seek to lord it over others. You submitted your comment not knowing that I'm not with them. I stand apart from them.

        As for the term "love," it is not real love to do harm. Homosexuality does harm in all cases. It is not showing love. It is distorting the term for selfish reasons.

        As for condoms, the artificial shortcuts to seemingly be allowed to engage in otherwise disease-spreading activity is not conducive to avoiding the later fall. Denying the self when it is apart from God is good. Condoms condition one to use means that set one up for other falls. Artificial means to engage in hedonism with seeming impunity is not good because there is no impunity. There is eternity for evil to catch up. Of course, if you are an atheist, you think you're going to blackout for eternity when your flesh gives up the ghost.

        Now, you aren't a Christian. You don't know what I am saying when I say "God." You have your ideas, but I know that you don't know. You don't speak or read or understand the language of the revelation.

        Also, sex is a commodity. It is sold for capitalistic profit. I don't mean just mundane prostitution. I mean advertising as in the Madison Avenue variety. Sex is no where near what it is cracked up to be. The actual act is spun by advertisers. The tempter says to the virgin that it's the greatest thing. Well, it doesn't turn out to be what was expected. It does though introduce addiction and excess that is further encouraged for no good reason.

        This is certainly unconventional on my part but no less true.

        If we stripped away all the bull in advertising and money-making off stimulating sex overdrive, teens wouldn't have nearly the pressures. If we told it as it really is including the drawbacks of sex, and there are such as any honest person will admit, then things could calm down.

        The Nancy Reagan "Just Say No" campaign is an isolated measure. The "rightwing" is disjointed in its approach to everything. It's the flipside of your ideology, also fractured by Real Christian definition.

        Saying no is right (and plenty of teens do it), but it's harder than it would be by virtue of all the hypocritical aspects that remain. For abstinence to work easily it takes a village, a world, a cosmos, Heaven really. The sin of anyone makes the place darker. That's how it is.

        I will attempt to answer any of your questions so long as they are apparently genuine and not knee-jerk. Please read around here to see if the answers to your questions are already provided.

        If I don't ever hear from you again, I'll conclude that you didn't hear Jesus's voice in what I'm saying and not because it isn't there.



    • "According to numerous peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals, homosexual behavior is correlated with higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases, various forms of cancer, depression, drug and alcohol abuse, violence, and suicide, and is associated with lack of healthy bonding with the parent of the same sex."

      The group of people in the US with the highest rate of STD's is the African-American Population. The highest rate of alcoholism is found in Native American communities. What do these two groups have in common? The were both oppressed, abused and held back by "white Christians". If LGBT Americans (and yes gay people are Americans) have higher rates of STD's and alcoholism, maybe it's because "white Christians" are up to their same old tricks. Now please educate yourself, then speak.

      The above quote is the epitome of racism, hate, intolerance and bigotry. Oh, and in case you didn't know, bigotry is not liking someone because of a characteristic they can NOT change. Being gay falls into that category.

      • James Hipps,

        Educate yourself!

        First of all, it's dim to take a block of problems and disassociate a few in your mind and then call that the definitive refutation. It's below weak. You didn't read "Homosexuals: What they ignore" and address it in total.

        Cherry picking straw man you set up and then knock down isn't refuting righteousness.

        Homosexuality results in many disease states. That's the point of the RC article.

        Get rid of homosexual behavior and certain diseases will definitely not arise. Remove all causes of all diseases and (who doesn't know), there won't be any diseases.

        Cigarette smoking is not the contributing factor, or only cause, of all lung cancers, right? Can you say, "That's right." Now, can you understand that White Christians, per se, didn't cause the laundry-list of diseases of homosexuality or are you as stupid as a mud fence? There were homosexual diseases before there were White Christians.

        Logic, intellectual check and mate — Your whole worldview has been exposed here as complete garbage. Too rough? Then don't spar. The children's souls are on the line. Anyone who expects me to take it easy on the serpentine is being part of the problem.

        The problems heterosexual Blacks and American Indians experience are not the direct result of homosexual behavior in the most commonly understood sense of "result," including the one you are attempting here. Cause and effect is not as you are attempting to paint it here. You are twisting. It is extremely transparent to those who are not conditioned to thought-termination.

        Is this over your head? I more than suspect that it is. Are you lost, or can you follow the points? That's not sarcasm. Wake up.

        The fact that there is no correlation with something or that there may be other factors does not negate the direct correlation between a) among other homosexual aspects, penises being stuck up anuses over and over and over and b) disease causing and spreading, anti-anatomically correct, always harmful, selfish behavior — an absolute choice, always.

        The fact that there are White Christians didn't cause you to choose your disease state. Certain behaviors of some White Christians no doubt have a bearing, but to lay the diseases of homosexuality at the door step of White Christianity is a farce.

        Your use of "white" is a sick ploy as well. You think that the Black readers who come here are going to fall for your attempt to try to lump me in with racism? Stupid! This is an international, multi-racial website. Look around before you speak. Hold your tongue, serpent.

        You don't have a choice you say? You have a choice. You're just choosing to be totally selfish: Promoting harm. Choosing homosexual behavior is to harm. It's inherent. There's no escaping it. It's not good now, never has been, and never will be. It's harmful behavior that is chosen by people.

        Now, are you saying it is not harmful behavior? I don't hear you or see you saying that. If it isn't harmful, then why the cancer?

        All the problems haven't come from White Christians. Not all White Christians are the same. You're a religious bigot.

        To use your twisted logic, all Blacks and American Indians should be homosexuals or at least have the same cancer that often results from homosexuality or at least have lacked "healthy bonding with the parent of the same sex."

        Your methodology is fatally flawed.

        Homosexuals do not have higher rates of certain cancers "because 'white Christians' are up to their same old tricks." They have higher rates of homosexual-caused cancers because of choosing to engage in the stupid homosexual act. They have higher rates because they refused to choose to stop.

        Your statement that homosexuals cannot change is a blatant lie perpetuated by predators and homosexual proselytizers. If people who engage in homosexuality cannot stop, then why do some stop? They do. It's documented on this site. Your statement is asinine.

        If people cannot change, then how can people stop doing evil?

        Your message is from Hell.

        You hold out nothing good here for souls.

        You informed me of nothing I didn't already know. The stats about Blacks and American Indians is common knowledge.

        Furthermore, we aren't dealing in "maybe" here.

        As for hate, intolerance, and bigotry, you hate me.

        Tolerance and condoning are two different things. I'm not out shooting homosexuals. I don't advocate for it. I advocate against it. However, I do not condone homosexual behavior. If you don't like that, too bad. I'm still right. Homosexuality is wrong. It's harmful, always. Nothing good comes from it. It is not good for anyone. It's always bad.

        You have made clear that your political position rests on the false premise that homosexuality is not a choice. Once the fact that it is a falsehood becomes clear and plain, you've finally lost even in your own mind. The hearts and minds of truthful souls will never agree with you regardless of violent coercion on the part of the secular state you wish to control and to dominate to get your way to do iniquity and to spread it thereby killing souls.

        Your position is a lie. It is built upon falsehood. You are a liar.

        You are leading the children astray into evil and the whole world is going to come to that conclusion.

        Lastly, there is nothing gay about homosexuality. It is the opposite of gay.

        Now, repent and change!

      • By the way, since stats seem to be in order here, Blacks in their old country churches professing Christianity are opposed to homosexuality in higher percentages than are Whites. They are more correct in general. Their understanding of Jesus's message is better/closer.

        Don't give me the lack of "education" garbage either. Wisdom is the old Black woman who never even went to (your) school sitting on her porch in her rocking chair remembering the evils of slavery and being as softhearted, loving, and kind as they come while calling evil, evil.

        When she tells you that homosexuality is evil (based upon her own reading of Jesus's words), you better believe she's speaking for Christ and for me too.

    • I go with the first comment and I enjoy the discussion that go after it. It is great to learn and see how others feel and how they think. We all have rights and preferences and hopefully, we can respect each other on that. That is the first step to a harmonious coexistence.