This is an open letter to Graham Langdon of Entrecard:

Look, Graham, what I'm saying here is that until such time when theoretical, futuristic technology where humans become able to construct from much more basic building blocks of matter comes into existence, humans aren't able to make silk purses out of sow's ears.

There is what is called the mixed economy of socialism and capitalism. However, in the final analysis, its inherent flaw and contradictions present an insane basis upon which to build human society.

What is termed "market socialism" afterall is also rightly termed "state capitalism." Even if the world were to be divided into just two market-socialist blocks, the competition between them, the holding out for recompense, would still present the fatal flaw of hypocrisy, fatal to the task of utilizing the best system conceivable and definitely doable.

What is happening at Entrecard on the microcosmic level is the same thing that is happening on the global macrocosmic level. There are people who want as much socialism in Entrecard as they can squeeze out.

Graham, you sought a way to accommodate that, to find a balance, a perfect blending. However, you haven't been able to satisfy, nor will you. That's the point. The system doesn't work. You should be getting an education out of all this experience that informs you that hardening won't help and neither will softening while forever remaining in that system (Hell on Earth). The system itself, that of capitalism, is the sow's ear.

On the Christian level, in terms Jesus discussed, which people may read for themselves, capitalism is the old wineskin that cannot hold the new wine that is Jesus's spirit of God. One cannot love others as Jesus loved his closest disciples while employing capitalism as that in which one places his or her faith and trust. Jesus makes clear that to try is futile, a logical fallacy.

Now, Graham, you could change Entrecard over to equal-membership-ownership and complete profit sharing, even non-profit, per se. That's moving closer to what I have in mind, but it's still not going to get one all the way there.

I'm not saying that the-softer-hearted-the-better isn't right. That though is only relative and will miss the absolute mark. I'm saying that the ultimate goal must be perfection. Getting from here to there is the task. Aiming lower will never work.

The softer-the-better while never intending to shift out from the root that is capitalism is an error in reasoning, spirit, and existence (beingness). The softer-the-better while intending to shift, and actually shifting, out from the root that is capitalism to consensus communism (not coercive) and where communism is understood as Jesus teaches and not as Marx distorted, is the correct path.

I hope this help shed light. It takes mental and emotional work to arrive at this point.

Lastly, the RagingRev blog should definitely not be listed in the Religion and Spirituality category by Entrecard. It should be listed in a separate category call non-religious, non-spiritual or words to that effect: Atheism. That blog is not religious or spiritual. It is the exact opposite. I was planning that as my first forum-statement but was cutoff by Satan, so I've stated it here to be heard.

Peace, All,

Tom Usher

Take 'em down to take 'em up


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.
    • Seeing as how my blog (the ragingrev one) is highly focused on religious subject matter and debunking religion or having religious debates, I don't see any reason to move it into it's own category. It simply wouldn't make sense and it would harm my current audience...people like you are the ones i want to read it...not just Atheists.

      Furthermore, I have never laid personal attack on you but I have to wonder why there is no category for "zealot" on may feel more at home there.

      see...that doesn't feel too good does it?