MAJOR UPDATE: June 04, 2009:
For those who won't know what's going on here, I had submitted a comment on Church Crunch that showed up to the world and then disappeared. I submitted another, and the same thing happened. Its blog owner, John Saddington, responded by saying that both went to spam because I submitted a duplicate. I submitted the second only after the first had disappeared. I've been being heavily censored and banned around the Internet, so I took it as just another case of censorship and called it such. You may read about the whole thing on this site. However, the blog owner, John Saddington had asked for proof. So, here's proof now that the second comment went through just fine and then "disappeared." Both Google and BlogCatalog picked up the comment submission that Intense Debate had placed on John's blog post before the comment "disappeared." I called it "deletion" and have been catching Hell over on John's blog for it. I say most everyone over there is being unreasonable.
John Saddington wanted proof? Here's proof the comment was there back on May 20, 2009. Notice the little Intense Debate logo. This is BlogCatalog having picked it up before it was deleted, just the way I said Google had also indexed it. Google re-indexed though before John Saddington asked for proof — (thinking it wouldn't be available anywhere?)
CHECK THIS IMAGE: Comment on Church Crunch on May 20, 2009
May 20, 2009, was the same date John posted the article. John didn't put it back up until June 1, 2009, after Mikes of http://your-dailyword.blogspot.com had brought it to his attention again. Now, that vindicates me in terms of any doubts about it. I was the only one to whom the disappearance happened. How does John Saddington explain it? John said it was because of a duplicate submission and spam. It was not. The first comment had shown up too but it wasn't up long enough to be caught by BlogCatalog. Intense Debate let both go through. Both were deleted after being allowed. They were not treated as spam. What really happened?
Put yourself in my shoes. If you don't think this looks like censorship, what am I supposed to say? There may be another explanation, but under the circumstances of being censored and banned around the Internet, I don't believe I'm being outrageous and should be treated as a pariah. Besides, anyone passing judgment or attempting to discern needs to read the rest of this post and all the other material relating to it. What's below though should give anyone pause concerning John's ethics. I say that with Gospel cause required verbatim by Jesus Christ.
CHURCH CRUNCH DISHONORING ITS OWN UNSOLICITED PLEDGE
This is a new post as a follow-up to my earlier post: "CHURCH CRUNCH "CHRISTIANS" CENSORING? THIS CHRISTIAN WITHOUT CAUSE"
I feel it's important because dishonor is afoot. I don't want to leave it unaddressed because I don't want anyone thinking that this should reflect poorly upon my work to feed the lambs and sheep of God – something John Saddington has thus far ignored and something many hate and have not only sought to censor and ban but have, in fact, censored and banned. I believe that, that hatred (and it is hatred not just of me but of God and Jesus) has many supporters, many more than who do support the call of Jesus.
The owner, John Saddington, of Church Crunch, wrote to me that he was dropping the issue and requesting that I not reveal the content of the emails between us. He told me to continue as I'm moved so to do. He did so in a cordial tone, contrary to his post cited above. I took him at his word and pressed on even with new developments.
John, though, did not honor his email to me.
He rather moved to inflame the situation after asking me to assume he was done (and without any explanation about what had originally happened to my comment that disappeared — the only one that did).
I am not revealing the full content of the emails between us, but I reserve the right to do so if it becomes warranted. I'm not worried about their content. I didn't ask John not to post them. I just make it a habit not to post emails with names for the sake of open communications with others. I don't want my visitors worrying that I will carelessly divulge sensitive or private information without their advance approval. Below, I quote John just enough so readers may know the basics and follow to discern truth from the spirit of falsehood revealed via words and deeds.
John posted the following (after telling me he was dropping the whole thing and without notice to me or further comment or explanation): ""
Here is the comment I left there that did show up. This time I took images and copies because before, John insisted on proof (rather difficult to anticipate that a comment would disappear).
John, you wrote a comment saying that my comment disappeared because I submitted a duplicate. I wrote a thorough response showing that that was incorrect. You chose to ignore it. You rather said that I should have contacted you (something I have done with others many times). In my reply, I said quite openly that I would apologize and post a prominent retraction if you can explain how the comment showed up, was indexed by Google, and then disappeared.
You were told early on about the problem, but did nothing – claiming later you didn't have time.
Now, other people here are possibly attempting to see into why I'm might have concluded that I was censored. Nowhere have you taken a second to sympathize with the fact that all over the place wholly appropriate comments of mine have been blocked and I've even been banned by atheists and others for standing up for Jesus or that I have made contact about comments not showing up plenty of times but that I felt that in this case, it wasn't warranted. Was it a hasty conclusion? That was your stated position, but now what have you done?
You never answered my questions about how the comment showed and then disappeared. My Intense Debate comments had not been having problems before your site. Now they are.
You then wrote an email to me saying that you don't want me to put the content of the email online but that you were going to "drop it" (the issue). Now I've been notified by others that not only did you not honor that statement but you've posted the above post without any notice to me from you that you were reneging on your unsolicited email to me. Interesting method. If you weren't dishonest before, you certainly are now. If people can rebuke me here but don't rebuke you for what you've plainly done that's slimy, that's their problem.
You may have plenty of visitors supporting your position here; but considering that your explanation about duplicate comments and spam was without merit and that you've now clearly done exactly what you said you would not and after I've been attempting to find out more about what might have happened where I was possibly in error, well, John, you may be disappointed, but now I'm even more disappointed.
Why should I believe you now about the original disappearance of the comment after you said you were dropping it and also wrote to me, "Whatever you feel led to do you may do"? Now clearly exposed as dishonorable, are you to be trusted?
I had more issues come up regarding Intense Debate and pursued the issues with it in mind to return here sincerely to apologize (to repent of any error) if it turns out that Intense Debate screwed up and not you. I put the new information online for all to see.
You didn't answer my comments or questions because, as you wrote, you "have much more important issues to deal with than this," but you found the time to write this post and answer these comments without letting me know or commenting on my site, etc.
Yeah, it sucks is right.
I'll leave it to others to decide who's being completely honest here. I know.
P.S. The choice of image for this post is extremely misleading.
Now, you decide.
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)