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 "Religion and Spirituality." The letter "A" was the Cross of Jesus. The name "Hyper Godless" is rather the "Raging Reverend" ( in various iterations. The moderator was not I but Matt Oxley. The network is Entrecard.

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.

Do you trust Christopher Hitchens, Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Ayn Rand (the raging capitalist), and Gore Vidal (the raging homosexual/bisexual) rather than Jesus?

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

Tom Usher


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.
    • Hi Tom,

      I am sort of attempting to level your accusations on my own blog post right now, it is getting lengthier as you continue to add more fuel to this little fire though.

      I did want to make one very concise statement regarding the EuroYank blog. I just want you to know that when the EuroYank banning was discussed I yelled until I was blue in the face to have the decision overturned....I didn't see any information in his blogs that was offensive in the least, and I agreed with many of his opinions, as I agree with many of your opinions as I have previously indicated. You were banned because you decided that it was healthy and intelligent for you to call me a devil and a liar and a have tried to build an audience against me...if you were doing this to any other member I would ban you just as well...when you do it to a mod we see it faster and can handle it more quickly.

      also note that I was not setting you up to do this...I knew you would, but I was just picking with the zealot did with that what was in your very nature to do, lash out and show your colors...thats it. I can't help that you can't take a joke.

      Just because I knew how you would react doesn't mean that I should censor my sense of humor, i was really giving you the benefit of the doubt, I thought that you just might take it lightly and joke around for a bit but you couldn't do that.

      I am sorry that things are this way, I am even more sorry that EuroYank is still banned...he never attacked me !


      • Look Matt,

        You did what you did. You're all twisted in your talk. In so many words, you said you'd report back about EuroYank. You didn't. I said it. You saw that. You still didn't return to report. If you can say now that you defended him, then you could have said it before. You take all the readers here for idiots.

        You know well that in Christianity an antichrist is demon possessed by definition. Whether literal or figurative it still pertains. When you called me a "Zealot," which you have admitted to doing, you likewise knew that it was false. I am not a zealot in the sense you used it to attack me and never have been. I have zeal, but that's a different connotation, a different context, that you did not intend, which you've made clear. Zealots were antichrist, and you know that. You cannot plead ignorance about it. Many people don't know the meaning as you used it, but you do up to a point that has exposed you.

        As for "healthy and intelligent," of course it was healthy and intelligent. I stood up for Jesus Christ. That's always healthy and intelligent. It's a badge of honor to be banned for Christ. As for building an audience, I have avoided broadcasting over and above what is routine for me. I could broadcast on the social networking sites, per se. If and when I need to, I will. It won't be directly about you though. It will impact upon you however. Everything I write impacts upon you. I'm creating the future. That's what souls do. Some do it in light. Eventually, all will. All will believe.

        You thought it was "healthy and intelligent" of you to pick at me with the false accusation of anti-Christ "Zealot": The way you meant it and used it and "knew" I'd take it, which no one may change after-the-fact or at this late stage. Don't even try it. It will just make you look even more evil.

        Of course I knew what you were doing. Do you think I was born yesterday? I didn't make a mistake in standing up about it. Entrecard and you have made the mistakes, naturally. Jesus didn't make a mistake when he stood up. He stood up and said to drop the stones. I say the same. Where are you, and where is your consistency? It isn't there because your ends are imperfect.

        Now, this all matters because of your stated objective to destroy me in that I am a supporter of Jesus and you have vowed to work to destroy his message, which message is good for all people. You lie about Jesus. You deceive about Jesus. You harm people thereby. You are anti-Christ, as you proudly announce. Yet you ban me when you more than imply that I am a liar and deceiver and Zealot? Double standard, do you know what that means and how to avoid it?

        The word gets around, Matt. I'm dealing with people as I go about my ordinary routine. Regardless, there are many people who are deeply dissatisfied with you and with Entrecard and for cause. That doesn't make everything they do correct, but they aren't all wrong about Entrecard and you. They don't see you as so friendly, Matt. Many see you as the enemy of Jesus who died for the sake of the truth that is his New Commandment, which commandment takes more than a ridiculous George Carlin level cartoon to comprehend.

        Also, what are you doing but building an audience with your traffic building measures? It is disingenuous of you and purely hypocritical to come here suggesting that Christians are not allowed to point out iniquity in the world which pointing out gets attention. Of course it gets attention. People want the truth.

        Now, it is twisted to say that you were "picking with the zealot thing," claim you knew I would "lash out" (your characterization with which I do not hold), and then turn around saying you were joking and thinking I might wish to be jocular with this particular antichrist, a particular breed of antichrist possessed of a certain combination of unclean spirits not found in all other atheists. Hence, I can and have had communication with other atheists where truer intellectual back and forth has taken place. It hasn't ever gone far enough, but many have been willing enough to parse the language. When they've been stymied, they've simply not returned, unlike you.

        You were instantly paranoid that you could lose traffic to your site if you were properly identified/categorized. In this series, Thomas James correctly stated your motivation: Retaliation for my having suggested a category. John Metcalf's site satirizes Entrecard. It's apt. Can you handle the humor? Can you take the joke? Can Graham Langdon take it? If you can take that, why couldn't you take what I wrote? If I wrap "devil" in humor, do I escape? Is it suddenly not an attack?

        Take a joke. Take a non-joke. The meanings are the same in this. Both speak about Entrecard and you. I'm not looking for loopholes. I'm not looking for cover. I'm not looking for plausible deniability. I'm not writing "fiction" as a cover for truth telling. Jesus spoke in parables. He said the time for parables would end and did end then for some. I get that. You don't.

        More importantly, can you defend against the satire from an intellectual standpoint? No, you can't. If someone where to do the same concerning the RLCC, I would address logical errors and ignorance. I wouldn't find it funny because things are funny to me when they show truth, not distortion. That's why I didn't think George Carlin was funny. When atheists were laughing, I was knowing how ignorant Carlin was, how he was being illogical and twisting the words out of ignorance. Now, why would I have taken your "Zealot" as a joke when I knew you were being much worse than George Carlin because you knew just enough to get yourself into trouble without an excuse. You can't feign ignorance about it on this level. You painted yourself into a corner.

        It doesn't pertain to the RLCC because the full membership decides by consensus and the RLCC isn't working within the involuntary larger system of capitalism and isn't attempting to force others by such means or any other. At Entrecard, the membership does not decide. The elites decide with one having final veto power. You work for him. He works for whom?

        I don't clean anything but the temple. Do you understand that? No, you don't. If you were to understand it, you'd be a Christian. "Lashing out" is in the eye of the beholder. Did I give you stripes? I told the truth. Did it whip you? Whose fault is that? If the shoe fits....

        Well, Matt, it's all been a joke. I was kidding. I'm really an atheist pretending to be a Christian making them all look bad. Therefore, why was I banned? Let the joker back in. That's the level you're on.

        You and I never had a rapport. There was tension from before your first comment. That's because I saw your 125x125 and your name and your site and some of your comments around and sized you up for what you are. You have been true to form.

        You are the police for Entrecard. You didn't resign in protest over EuroYank. You didn't make public your "blue in the face" disapproval until now, did you? Where? You knew I was waiting. You still haven't said what it was that was on his site that got him banned. Do you think I can't see that? He can see it.

        What was it Matt? What specifically on EuroYank's blog got him banned? What special interest group got him banned? The forum said there were several complaints. What were they verbatim? Who accused him? Testify, Matt. Where are your priorities? Stand up even if it gets you banned.

        EuroYank's blogs are anti-fascist. His site documents fascism in the American Empire and elsewhere. I'm not endorsing every last thing he's written. He has a right to change his mind too. I'm not finalizing anyone. Jesus didn't and doesn't do it. He warned and warns, which any good brother does. He enlightens. He reveals greater and greater truths all the way to perfection.

        EuroYank knows who stood up and who didn't. He knows "blue in the face" doesn't cut it when the blue one goes right back to work banning people for their political or religious statements. You stood up you say, but you sat back down and shut up regardless. He's been banned. Entrecard isn't the first place.

        No, he didn't attack you directly. Neither did I, unless a category suggestion is an attack and defending with theology against being called a "Zealot" is an attack. They aren't.

        Some though in Entrecard complained about EuroYank. The forum was full of statements that were highly anti-EuroYank. For one, he was falsely accused of attacking a member on racial grounds. He made clear to the aggressive youth in the same thread with the youth that it was a test and that he is not a racist. I read it. The kid did not accept it. He rather used it against EuroYank in the forum, which forum thread was deleted to erase the history as if it never happened, just the way certain atheists would love to erase Jesus from the record, just the way the Roman Empire tried to suppress Christianity — nothing in the mass media, nothing in the history books, therefore, he never existed. And you believe the Caesars? Wow. You must have believed George W. Bush about weapons of mass destruction. Oh, you're going to say that you didn't perhaps. Why didn't you? Afterall, you buy the first century Roman Empire's line, don't you? Well, the "myth" became so powerful in spite of all the efforts to keep it down that the state finally accepted it and even co-opted it and twisted it to its ends. You don't believe that though, right? Actually, the state came up with it all to control us. Is that what you think? Do I seem controlled by the state, Matt, or am I seen as an enemy of the state because I'm an extremist for righteousness? Who's telling it as the Gospels say it, the state or Tom Usher? If the state made it up, why don't they use it? Why does following it make one an enemy to be banned? Logic, Matt, where's your logic?

        EuroYank was banned for legitimate political speech.

        He censors on his blog. I censor on this one. We all have our standards. Mine is that I won't continue on debating with others who skirt the points. I don't care (the way they would like me to care about that). I care that they don't address the issues head on. Others are deceived by those who lie and don't answer to the lies.

        You did not go to Entrecard about me saying, "My mistake. I picked at him. I shouldn't have done that." You didn't explain the situation. You exploited it for your own personal, private, special privilege and advantage. You're an elitist, Matt Oxley. Your side loses.

        I was open about it all. You are still closed. You are part of the problem. Your methods are why people are spied upon and tortured and murdered for mammon and land and the history is changed. You may not be able to make those connections, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. They are there. You are culpable. It's a matter of degree, but it's there.

        You blame God for your errors.

        Now, I was never interested in schmoozing with you on your level. I'm not interested in agreeing to disagree with you. You are out to destroy Jesus Christ and God. I stand with them, not you. You have made yourself the enemy of all that is good and right.

        Read into this what you will. I would love nothing better than for you to see the light. I do not curse you. I am not the punisher. I don't torture. I warn people against it. You stand against me, lying about religion, lumping it all together, all to be thrown out.

        You want to throw out The Christian Commons. You don't care about homosexual harm. ("Homosexuals: What they ignore.") You rather proselytize for it. You're a capitalist. You're for greed. Are you for war too? Or are you a total pacifist, non-coercive communist, and opposed to all sexually harmful behavior? I know you think there is nothing metaphysical. You're wrong. You will find that out whether you want to or not.

        You did not address this post. This post makes all things clear and plain. You refuse to see the plain truth in this post. You obfuscate and attempt to change the subject. Re-read it. It stands. You haven't knocked it down, nor will you, ever.

        Atheism gets you nowhere but darkness. Jesus gets you to the truth.

        Bless you, Matt Oxley with the truth. If you reject it, that's not my fault. That's your fault. That's the fault of the root you've absorbed and that has absorbed you.

        Now, I've made clear here and elsewhere that I don't continue communicating with people who do not address the points when they level accusations. You want to comment here again, go back over all the material and don't dodge or duck the questions. That's the way it is here. You want to handle it differently on your site, go do it. It's dumb, but God has given you free choice to make mistakes. Whether you learn or not is another matter.

        Peace, Real Peace, to All,

        Tom Usher

    • I've been observing as Entrecard goes from bad to worse. :-( I'm disgusted by the behavior of certain moderators, although to be honest a few of the mods seem like decent folk.

      At the moment I'm only banned from the forums, but it probably won't be much longer before I'm kicked out completely.

      • I must admit, I did laugh. Is that anti-Christian of me to laugh? I don't wish them ill, but God does have a sense humor. Apparently so do you.

        • You know, a nice, non-profit, slower-paced, user-supported, user-owned network would be refreshing. 300 drops a day is insanity. You can't do justice to 300 blogs a day, not where substantive blogs are concerned — plus leave truly thoughtful, thought-provoking comments not designed just for traffic, traffic, and more traffic. The commercial bloggers need to come to realize that people are tuning out the ads with the exception of those who are preying upon the unsuspecting as with a Ponzi scheme.

          I'll show you how to get all the traffic you need for only $195.99 marked down during this one-time only special (you'll never see this offer again, until you reject it and it comes up again and again) of only $49.95. That's $50 by the way. To get all the traffic and make the same kind of money I'm raking in, all you need to do is be that much more obnoxious than I'm here to convince the suckers that they too can be money grubbing and offer nothing but money grubbing.

          Capitalism is great! It brings abundance. Don't mind the pollution or anything. You're going to die anyway. What do you care? Let the next generation worry about that stuff. Get yours now. Don't think. Act now!