I just joined NowPublic "nowpublic.com." To do so, I had to agree to their "Terms of Use." Those require me to agree not to post anything, among other things, as follows:

unlawful, harassing, libelous, defamatory, abusive, threatening, or harmful material of any kind or nature or transmit any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offence, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate any applicable local, provincial, state, national or international law or regulation.

Can it be done by anyone? No. The terms are subjective in the mundane. I understand NowPublic's position. They are covering themselves. They are offering themselves a method for removing those they wish to censor or whom they don't wish to defend for allowing to post.

To join, one must also agree to their "Code of Conduct." That code emphasizes the term "harm." They don't want any member deliberately violating "[their] points - especially those that harm other members...."

Harm is subjective in the mundane. I "preach" against all harm. Others take my "preaching" as harmful to their cause. I take their position as harmful to harmlessness. Who's right? The issue can be and is debated; however, no one has ever debated it against me to its logical conclusion.

NowPublic is opposed to ad hominem attacks.... An ad hominem is a personal accusation. However, how may one avoid such? Anyone who disagrees with me is accusing me of being personally wrong. To avoid the ad hominem is to avoid exhaustively discussing right versus wrong. This is the logical conclusion. Where do people draw the line concerning what becomes an unacceptable personal attack versus a debate about right versus wrong that must be had in the open?

When one is discussing the evils of war with a war maker, what is "civil" discourse? What is "rudeness or hostility"? War is not civil, polite, or non-hostile by its very nature. How may I say so without "harming" the war maker or being labeled as uncivil, rude, hostile, and one engaged in ad hominem attacks?

Lines are drawn. Are they in the right places?

I've been censored and banned for speaking truth to power (false power). (See: "TRUTH PICKS FIGHTS, OR DOES IT?")

Am I against NowPublic, per se? I'm for what I say. Are they against it? I'm for what is best: Perfecting. Are they against it? Must I abide by their notions and thereby avoid the truth contained in the message of Jesus, my brother?

What's a flamer on NowPublic? A flamer, according to the Wikipedia and quoted by NowPublic, is a person who "is usually not constructive, does not clarify a discussion, and does not persuade others."

What's a troll on NowPublic? Flamers who "wish to upset and offend other members ... are trolls."

Now, looking for sites that differ in world and spiritual view from one's own and engaging those sites is not necessarily wrong.

But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand. (Ezekiel 33:6 KJV)

You see here that if I know something is wrong societally and I don't speak out, I'm accountable for having avoided the discussion. Do I believe this? Yes, I believe it. Do people become upset by the truth? If I say homosexuality is harmful, it upsets some people. It heartens others. Therefore, is it acceptable to NowPublic that I say it or not? If I say the same of war, the same pertains, and also of greed.

Here's part of what NowPublic says:

This ain't no democracy. This isn't to say we're a dictatorship either-more like the Knights of the Round Table. We'll protect and defend those citizens who honour our little Camelot. And those who don't? We shall strike you down by the blade of Excalibur. Or, in laymen terms:

Deciding who is or isn't a flamer, and how that contributor will be handled, is at the final and sole discretion of the NowPublic staff.
The flamer ... [makes] sweeping statements about ... your beliefs;....
The flamer presents his/her opinion as the only correct one;
The flamer makes a statement or poses a question that seems hateful, abusive, inflammatory ... or otherwise serves to marginalize a person or persons, or generalizes about a person or persons;
The flamer makes a personal statement or poses a personal question that makes you uncomfortable or angry.

These are ripe for subjective abuse.

If I say that all homosexuality is harmful ("Homosexuals: What they ignore") and that therefore all homosexuals bring forth bad fruit, am I making a sweeping statement that make homosexuals (some) feel uncomfortable or angry and that therefore I should be banned from NowPublic?

Why does NowPublic have this relative position? Why are so many sites arbiters on this level? Does it have a damping impact upon the watchman's trumpet? It does.

NowPublic says the following about itself:

NowPublic is a community that values intelligence and openness. Our users need not subscribe to hate speech, abusive or inflammatory behaviour in order to get a point across. This is not a schoolyard, and you are not a ten year old.

I find that those who like this notion of "hate speech" ordinarily like to apply it as a one-way street. If a homosexual or homosexual advocate says "Christians" this or that, it's ignored. The prohibition against "sweeping statements" will be ignored provided the entity putting forth the point (right or wrong) sides with the ideological view of the site's controllers (whether they call themselves dictators or not).

It is a huge error to seek comfort defending iniquity. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. (Matthew 24:12 KJV)

I am hated. Do I censor them for it, or do I promote intelligence and openness?

I thought about joining NowPublic before but opted not to at the time for the very reason that their worldview is at cross-purposes with Jesus's. Nevertheless, being banned for speaking truth (harmlessness in the ultimate) is a badge of honor not sought pridefully but for love — real love; self-sacrificial love that God loves, and I know it.


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.
    • Truth shall prevail. Nothing can be against it.

      Keep it up, TOM. Just say the truth no matter what. It surely would hurt some but so what? what's important is Jesus and His Word.

      • Hey Mikes,

        Yes, people think the truth hurts them. They hurt themselves by turning from it rather than embracing it with their all. Thanks Mikes for encouraging me to continue standing up. We need to do that for each other.

        Speaking of which, have you been to Donna Bragg's site, "My Christian Diary"?

        Look at this brave comment she left on this site.

        Donna has been writing a series of articles since that comment. They're on martyrdom — makes being banned and censored pale by comparison.

        Go take a look if you haven't already. I'll be going back to leave comments in support of her. I think she's growing in her work. I've noticed a definite increase in strength showing through. It's inspiring.