My post on the Anti-fascist Facebook Group:

The Fascists are trying to stop the Churches from feeding the poor. Take a stand for righteousness. Visit the site and leave a supportive comment as soon as you can. Don't let any religious differences stand in the way on this, please.

I'm not a Methodist, but I stand with their feeding the poor. I stand against the Fascists, who don't give a damn about the poor or about you.

"A decision has been made... - Jesus Semiotics: What is Jesus doing in the world?"


The decision has been made that we are operating as a charity dining hall, and therefore are breaking zoning ordinance. So, to feed the hungry and poor on church property, according to this ruling, is not an allowed function of the church.

A Facebook user asked: "How is that fascism?

Just apply for the correct permits. . ."

My reply here because I had planned to blog on this anyway:

Applying for the correct permits is not what this is about. It's a zoning issue. I don't want to split hairs though. I understand what you mean.

Regardless, they could apply for a zoning waiver or permit or rezoning, etc., but that implies that the state can reject the church feeding whomever it wants on its own property. There would likely be a zoning hearing open to the locals whining against the poor being in their neighborhood.

This issue doesn't stop there though. There are many fascist municipal councilors across the country who have moved to prevent churches and others feeding the hungry on public property such as in public parks. So, if you can't feed them on public property and you can't feed them at your own church.... Are you seeing the pattern – the direction – the point behind the move to keep them from being fed?

Do you put the "rights" of the better-off above caring for the poor? I'm not saying that you do. I don't know. I'm just addressing that aspect of the issue.

Creating, abusing, and neglecting the poor is a long-running plan being unfolded more and more. Feeding the poor in public parks is not evil. It is a good thing. The problems arise when further care is blocked, which it is.

We have freedom of religion in the U.S. We don't have a state church. We have the free-exercise clause. Christianity demands, per Jesus Christ, that its adherents feed the poor even at risk to itself from the evils of the secular state, which evils are self-evident here.

Now, who is and who is not a member of the body of Christ? Seekers are invited into the churches. Can the state tell the church it can't feed such seekers? Who's defining the churches' terms? Who can say that a seeker can't return over weeks, months, years?

You specifically asked how it's fascism, per se. If you draw the line further along than do I, then you don't have to apply that term to the thrust of those seeking to enforce a zoning ordinance that is anti-Christian/against a Christian church.

Churches are zoned for residential and commercial areas in the U.S. to prevent anti-freedom of religion. There are limits placed upon the churches.

The debate here is one of further encouragement designed as part of an incremental plan to destroy the Christian religion and others. Freedom of Christian-religious conscience is to be destroyed. It is a New Age Movement aspect. Not all New Agers subscribe, but most do not know the underlying secret plans that are being "externalized." The conscience of hedonistic plutocrats is to be programmed into all humanity. It is an evil conscience. It lacks an unselfish root. It is designed to lock in a caste system – their wicked hierarchy that forces others to serve them as debt slaves and worse.

I don't coerce the New Agers, and I say that they are wrong to be attempting to coerce me.

The plutocrats hate my brand of righteousness. Look at Dick Cheney calling it "recklessness cloaked in righteousness."

Also, permits cost money that could be put to the highest and best use instead.


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.