UPDATE Thursday, December 03, 2009: I had told Google Blog Search that if they stopped censoring me, I'd say so on this Blog. As of this "UPDATE," Google Blog Search is now showing 1,967 posts as indexed and linked. () That's up again from only 4 at one point. Therefore, I'm adding this update.

1,967 is not all of the posts, but it seems that perhaps they are slowly re-indexing the site. I give them the benefit of the doubt. I haven't looked to see if they are avoiding "controversial" posts.

I requested John add me as a "friend" on Facebook. I did so for the sake of networking to spread the word, of course. Where and when properly to draw lines is a matter of taking guidance from the Holy Spirit. John responded with the following:

I've just been putting family on my Facebook account, Tom.
Frankly, I wasn't sure how I wanted to respond to you : but prefer openness w/o rancor. That is tough. I hadn't realized how annoying and unfair I found your attitude to homosexuals : something ignored because I don't generally interact with any. Nor can I claim to Scriptural validation or reference : I just have a reaction similar to that of spirtual nausea.

The following is my reply that I post here for the edification of those given by God to receive it:

John, I completely understand adding only family on Facebook. As for the issue of homosexuality, I know you are misunderstanding my position.

I know that the fact that I am not for coercion (not about pressing for secular laws one way or the other; they, homosexuals in general, are though and pressing very, very hard to oppress those who are anti-homosexuality, anti-homosexuality for a completely rational reason: harmfulness — truth) but am against denying that the behavior itself is not better than not behaving in it (that fact) is being ignored by seemingly hundreds of millions if not billions and growing.

I'm not even allowed to state this in detail on Google. They censored my posts because people have your reaction, never mind that it's a double-standard. I posted about that censorship and have received zero support for anti-censorship (on that level applied by Google for Google's reasons). Google is wrong on it. They've drawn the line in the wrong place. They aren't helping to bring out ultimate truth. They are not living up to their original motto that was "Do No Evil."

I've also been censored on OpEdNews for it. Interestingly, I've been censored on some anti-homosexual sites because I am consistent and speak out against the coercion of war and the evil of self-centered capitalism. It's not popular to strive to be consistent. Few there be that find it, as Jesus said.

Didn't you, once upon a time before you went through the political-socialization process, find homosexuality repulsive? Wasn't that your natural, unfiltered, God-given reaction? Doesn't that mean anything? The question leads to all sorts of thoughts about squeamishness and surgery and war and about other things on this plane of consciousness, this fleshly manifestation, all too often infestation, that I won't go into in this post.

Look, John, the first time you interacted with me was on this issue. I have never approached you from a spirit of rancor. If I make you feel sick, healing can include itching doesn't it? Alleviating the itch by scratching can exacerbate the wound although doing so feels so "good." Censorship of my position is akin to that scratching. Censoring me is shortsighted.

I see now though that I've continued interacting with you against your desire, so I will stop. It has never been my intention to continue on where I'm clearly not wanted. It doesn't mean I'm wrong and my position on these issues won't be vindicated. I'm right; and at some point, you will come to realize it whether in the here and now or the hereafter.


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 don't consider it my job to lecture on morality ; nor is it my position to follow anyone blindly.
      Yours would not be the first position to be misunderstood and misrepresented - or censored!
      I have not linked to some places that have made me think seriously about whether I was being unfair in doing so. That rankles for a person who thinks Free Speech implies viewpoints must be considered.
      What was my unfiltered reaction to homosexuality? Yecchh! And fear.
      Funny thing. I've had far more 'issues' with loudmouthed bigots who advocate violence, exclusion, injury and worse.
      That's the track record for me. No problems with sexual orientation of people : just with those who will not respect privacy of my person.

      • John,

        You do subscribe to what you believe are moral positions. You do advocate for your positions by virtue of your blog and links, etc. That process is fine with me.

        It isn't censorship, per se, where I take issue. I take issue with not hearing someone out. Once they hit the dead end that is their own stiff-necked refusal and can't go any further into the light that is truth, then I am fine with not listening to them any further along the same lines they were pursuing from the start.

        Some advocating for XXX pornography who would want to put up an example on this blog would be rejected because it's a dead end from the start. The problems associated with XXX porn have already been debated to conclusion.

        What hasn't been widely discussed openly, honestly, and directly are the true positions of Jesus Christ. Only distortions have been allowed by the mainstream media. If even a hint of the real truth that would be revealed by an exhaustive debate shows up, they preclude any such dialogue from taking place where the masses would see/hear it and be given the impression that those at the top actually give a damn about the truth of what is best.

        As you know, I am opposed to coercion (contrary to your 11 Aug - Morning Op-Eds, I am not in favor of "varying civil law for reasons of private sexual practice") and hence all violence. Of course, "violence" is a term that can be and is used in many different contexts. One might "violently" pull someone out of harms way. I know you know the context in which I mean the term here though. I am against violence against homosexuals in the commonly understood sense.

        If you mean to say that I'm wrong for looking forward to Heaven where I will be separated from the spirit that brings homosexual behavior and such, where that spirit will be excluded, then I say that you are wrong. I also say that you exclude. You have your limits on what you tolerate in your home. You exclude people on account of their behavior that offends you.

        We are also talking here about public policy debates. The homosexuals and others are putting forth certain arguments that they claim are settled science and such while it is not true. They wanted the microphones decades ago, which they didn't have back then because the powers were of the mind that homo-sex was unhealthy. They did finally get hold of the microphones and used that opportunity to plead their case for political tolerance for the most part. Now though, they have been moving rather fiercely to deny the microphone to those who are saying that the science is not settled, homosexuality is a choice and harmful, and that the behavior should not be promoted as a matter of public policy as being harmless.

        You have grandchildren. If something were to happen and your grandchildren became orphans with no close relatives to which to turn, all other things being equal, would you rather your grandchildren be adopted by a straight couple or a couple of homosexual men? This is hypothetical in your immediate circumstances, but children are being adopted by homosexual men who were complete strangers to the children. This seemed to come about in a rather stealthy manner. Did the "liberals" know that they were voting for representatives who would be taking society that far in that direction? Is it fine with you?

        John, you have more problems with war makers than with the issue of homosexuality. I though find great similarities in the spirit that makes the war you hate and the spirit that makes homo-sex. I see the error of selfishness and harmfulness in both, even where the war makers might be making war on the homosexuals. I also count amongst that general spirit of error those of the greedy, capitalist spirit.

        You don't see it that way. So be it for you. It is serving no purpose for us to continue going over the same ground. You've heard my points and reject my ultimate conclusion. I've heard yours and reject yours.

        We are on different paths. We won't end up in the same place. You'll be where wittingly unrepentant homosexuals are welcomed and affirmed. I don't want to be with that spirit. I want to be where it doesn't exist, where souls have overcome that temptation or never had it. I want to be where there is no spirit of war or greed or disordered lust. God is perfection to me, John. I don't know what he is to you. I don't want to aim low.

        I want to go where I want to go, not where the homosexuals are going, taking the people with them.

        I love you, John, in the way I'm supposed to that is consistent with Jesus's love toward you. That doesn't mean I'll open the door to you if you insist upon bringing wittingly unrepentant homosexual souls in with you. In your current frame of mind though, you'll not be knocking at my door in those days. Even if you were to, there will come a time when I would have to say, "I never knew you."

        There is separation. There is the conflation of the souls of ultimate truth. I believe this. I know this. My God does exist, John.


        • I want to explain the following from my comment above:

          As you know, I am opposed to coercion (contrary to your 11 Aug - Morning Op-Eds, I am not in favor of "varying civil law for reasons of private sexual practice") and hence all violence.

          I can't for the life of me figure out how John doesn't know this about me after all the times he has read my posts.

          I do not vote in secular elections. I am not registered. I belong to no secular political party. I am not a secularist, period. The government of the United States has no part in me nor I in it. That government is secular. It is coercive. Its authority is false (that is to say, false-hearted), as it rests upon the threat of violence against those who would disobey its commands. I don't hold with that way of being.

          It is difficult to avoid force in the mundane. I understand that. Unfortunately, it is not sufficient with all people simply to appeal to morality, which ultimately is Christianity. They are synonyms in my book (morality and real Christianity), not that Christianity is lowered to the level of mundanely limited notions of morality. Rather, real morality is up at the highest with Christianity also in the highest.

          Jesus cleansed the temple, and the temple stands in for the whole of existence for those who are in the know. Therefore, this is necessarily not the view of the unenlightened. Regardless, Jesus does not destroy but rather warns and allows truth to determine, which it does and will until the end. Jesus did not call down wrath. He called for the lost to turn direction and to return to righteousness, harmlessness, unselfishness. I seek to be consistent with that.

          I am not campaigning for the various secular governments of the world to make this or that either legal or illegal. The law is to be written on the heart of each. One day it will be. In that day, there will be no secular governments on the Earth or anywhere in human kind.

          What I do is speak of the hypocrisy within the system that is ruling this planet, with the exception of very few individual souls who do have the law written on their hearts, as difficult as others make that work.

          I am not angry at John so much as frustrated, of sorts, that he can't see this. It is frustrating (not that I'm going to become embittered) because he appears to be smart enough to arrive at it rather than continuing to have it slip away from him if he ever gets it. I'll let him speak for himself, but I will say that it appears he does get it but that something, some spirit, blocks him from taking hold of it and not letting it slip away.