I saw the following on a blog post:

Where my own self is concerned, I am content to turn the other cheek. However, I will fight—even to death—if the safety of my family is at stake. If a person stands by and does nothing when his children are being murdered, it is not a demonstration of righteousness. Rather, the person has become an accomplice to the murder, just as surely as though he had pulled the trigger himself.

I left the following for the author:

According to that, God has Jesus's blood on God's hands. Do you believe that? I don't.

Jesus did not go to war against the child murderers even though there were plenty of them around he could have hunted down and killed. He could have gone around killing all sorts of sinners. He didn't do it. He didn't ask his closest friends to take up the sword for him or for anyone. He taught against doing that. He taught to have faith in God's power over the soul that survives the flesh. Murdered, innocent children go to God, not Satan. Slaughtering the slaughterers is what slaughterers do. They don't end up next to or face to face with God. There's a right reason for that. Sort it out. Understand that everyone is your family.


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.
    • I've received a reply on MyBlogLog, where I left my original comment:

      May 23, 2009 10:16 pm

      Hi. Thanks for the heads up regarding the problem with Blogger, and for your comment. As for your question, I think you have framed it in the wrong way. Certainly, the issue of Jesus' death on the cross is more complex than your question implies. To begin with, since God the father is indivisible from Jesus the son, it was more of a self-sacrifice than anything else. However, following the same logic as your question, we could also ask if God is a murderer because he does nothing when anyone is ever killed here on earth. However, we know that things are more complicated than that. Indeed, Paul makes it clear that since God even sacrificed his own son for us (i.e., God does have blood on his hands!), God's grace and love is more than sufficient for us. The issue of God's culpability for human suffering does not lend itself to trite reductionalism. There are no easy theological answers regarding this. Getting back to the issue at hand (our own responsibility), really, if a murderer broke into your house, would you stand by and let him kill your child? If you did nothing, then you would be just as guilty as he. What about our neighbors? To give a real world example, who was guilty, just the Nazis who killed the Jews, or all of the Germans who could have acted to save the Jews, but chose to do nothing?

      My reply:

      You are welcome for the heads-up. My question implied simplicity to you, did it? That was in your mind. "blood on his hands" connotes guilt. God is not guilty of murdering his son unless you wish to think of humanity as one with God despite apostasy. In a certain context, that's right. It is not though much of an effort at setting priorities. Of course it was self-sacrificing. God knew and Jesus knew Jesus would be murdered. The message is, stop killing. It's not complicated, unless you make it complicated. I take exception to your use of the term "trite," let alone "reductionalism," which I've only ever seen as reductionism. "...if a murderer broke into your house, would you stand by and let him kill your child? If you did nothing, then you would be just as guilty as he." That's your view. That, however, is not Jesus's view. Jesus would not kill him or even resist him with fleshly violence. Your position lacks faith. The early Christians were led passively to their slaughter with their children, singing. Where are they now? Are they in Hell being punished for not fighting as Jesus taught them not to fight? I know they aren't. I have full faith in what Jesus taught. He was, and remains, correct. Also, are you fighting against the U.S. troops who are using unmanned predator drones to murder innocent babies even now? Are you fighting against the leaders who have ordered the mass murders? Is this becoming too complicated for you? I don't mean that in a condescending tone. It's a real, straightforward question. I've turned this into a post. You are welcome to come comment.

      " target="_blank">