Have you seen this symbol? It's a red, italicized, capital letter "A." Let's say there is a social-networking site with thousands of blogs driving traffic to and from each other and that the network uses categories including "Atheist" or "Atheism" or, better yet, "Anti-Religion," would it be right for me (a Christian) to be in that category while using that atheist symbol as my icon? I'm not asking whether or not some people would allow it. I'm asking whether it would be right. I also mean where there are not other indicators that I'm not an atheist. Would it be deception? Would it be misrepresentation, even blatantly so? Would it be false advertising?
Further more, let's say I had chosen "Hyper Godless" as my user name while presenting as my rationale that I had been a hyper atheist and was known by that name or label and that it would be unfair of anyone to expect me now to go by a different name.
Should I be defended for these actions: Using the "A" and the name when in fact I am the exact opposite? Am I trustworthy, or have I already demonstrated that I am a deceiver and that I willfully, knowingly misrepresent? Will I suddenly sell visitors only what is good, honest, and straight forward? Will I do so openly and directly? What miraculous transformation occurs from the status of false advertiser to angel of truth at the moment anyone clicks through on that image of the italicized, red, capital A with the name "Hyper Godless"?
Let us further say that an atheist steps up and says to the network owner that I am misrepresenting and misleading atheists and others by the means just described. Let us also say that the one who steps forward does not call for the deletion of my blog from the network but rather the proper categorization of my blog as the opposite of atheist. Should the one who stepped forward be banned for doing that?
Let us also posit that I happen to be a moderator (an insider, a volunteer authorized by that network to go about policing, judging, condemning, and moving to punish others with banishment for breaking the rules). Then, let us say that I as a moderator visit that one's site, call him a name admittedly to get a rise out of him, claim that I had always wanted only honest and intellectual debate while saying I didn't do that because it would have been impossible with that site's owner. Let us also say that I claim in a comment on that site that I doubt that the blog owner is an atheist or part of the atheist movement or forming and establishing an atheist organization (all as represented on that site), thereby attempting to raise suspicions as to ulterior (deceptive) motives on the part of that atheist blogger.
Then, let's say that the atheist blogger defends against this using atheist positions and that the atheist, is then banned for attacking me (rather than the other way around), and I seemingly remain silent on the issue.
Now, am I a good guy? I'm I nice and friendly? Do you like me for being and doing all of that?
Do you stand with the one who will deceive by any means to get people to his site, or do you stand with the one who says beware of that one?
All of the above is exactly what happened concerning me except the category was not "Anti-Religion" but rather "ragingrev.com) in various iterations. The moderator was not I but Matt Oxley. The network is Entrecard.." The letter "A" was the Cross of Jesus. The name "Hyper Godless" is rather the "Raging Reverend" (
Now, the activist atheist in question, Matt Oxley, tells people, whom he lures to his site, that religion, per se, is evil: All of it. He says Jesus is an evil myth. You wrote that on this site in his comments.
Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were atheists. Lenin started the mass starvation. Stalin finished it and engaged in all his purges, all in the name of atheism. Millions died who would not have died otherwise. Mao too starved millions and had his insane Cultural Revolution.
Professing God in lip service does not remove evils however.
The question though is not one of religion and spirituality, all or nothing, as fools suggest. It is rather a question of which religion and which spirit.
Hitler for instance was in a category of his own. He was attempting to become a god. He was creating his own religion. He wasn't given time to show where he thought he was headed. He was well aware of the Caesars as demigods.
Whom do you trust? Do you trust Matt Oxley or Jesus? Do you trust Richard Dawkins or Jesus?
At least Dawkins, unlike Matt Oxley, works from a position of what Dawkins would admit is probability. Has Dawkins said that he is positive there is no God? By the way, Dawkins refuses to debate. Ask him. This is the position of all who fear exposure. I'm not talking about missing-the-point fighting. I'm talking about intellectual positions.
Now, just because people are Marxist communists (in reality a misnomer) or capitalist egotists, or homosexuals denying the harm of it, does not mean that they are incapable of telling half-truths.
Jesus is as Jesus characterized himself. The atheists don't get to recast him except with dupes.
Prophesy, son of man.
The Atheist movement will plateau much sooner than they imagine. It will fracture. It will turn in on itself, destroy, and devour.
When Entrecard banned the EuroYank blog [He has many and which have been up and down in terms of access ever since being banned; Let the situation stabilize], I knew, as did every other honest observer, that it had been for purely political reasons. Some people in the Entrecard network did not want EuroYank to be allowed to put forth what others categorize as conspiracy theories (in the pejorative sense). EuroYank had on his blog a great deal of anti-fascist material. While I didn't agree exactly with all of his style and every characterization, that was not the issue. He was not banned for misstating facts. He was banned for the facts he stated. Rather than allow others to see what EuroYank had to say and then debate those things, he was summarily banned without explanation. It could have been political Zionists. We don't know though because EuroYank was never faced by his accusers.
At the time, I wrote and I paraphrase myself here, what are we to do, leave the network in protest. I made it clear that it was my intention to remain in the center of the worldly world (that is the microcosm called Entrecard) while still doing much the same as EuroYank but from my Christian perspective. I did that. I did not stop raising the issue of EuroYank and what it means to greater society that he was banned for reasons undisclosed except for in very vague and general terms.
Now, who are the voices left behind now that I have been banned there also? Who speaks on my behalf over there, as I spoke on EuroYank's behalf? Who will brave with the truth so that all who remain are finally and clearly not of the truth?
Matt Oxley promised to get to the bottom of it and to let us all know. He didn't keep that promise. He didn't even try. He was too concerned with his own traffic. He doesn't brave with the truth, yet he says the truth doesn't know me. We shall see.
Real Peace, Giving and Sharing All with the Fold, No Harm
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)