I submitted the following blog post over on http://connect.tangle.com/TomUsher:
As of December 15, 2009, Tangle's TOS (http://connect.tangle.com/support/legal) doesn't contain the term "Christ" or "Jesus" or any derivatives thereof.
Tangle says, "Help us keep tangle.com a safe place for all Christians to share photos, blogs, videos, Bible comments, sermons, prayers and Christian music with your Church, family, and friends."
That led me, and still leads me, to believe that Tangle is to be a Christian site; however, I find openly professing atheists and anti-Christians on Tangle as members proselytizing against God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
For Tangle's and righteousness' sake, I do not want to define "professing Christianity and Jesus" for Tangle such that it would cause all those who don't exactly agree with me to be purged from Tangle.
However, I do not understand why atheists and non-Christians* are approved for membership on Tangle. I should think that the threshold ought to be "professing Christian" without qualifying it — meaning without attempting to denominationalize it.
I decided to make this a blog post here, as I know that Tangle will review it anyway. I had considered simply using the contact method to inquire about this.
When I joined Tangle, I was looking forward to interacting on this site exclusively with those who at the very least represent that they profess Jesus even if using a very wide definition of what that means.
I can and do debate elsewhere with atheists and others who do not profess Jesus. I had hoped that this would be one place where the discussion would be confined to refining the understanding of Christianity with a set of people who at least represent that they already profess Jesus Christ and Christianity. Atheists and other self-admitted non-Christians are a major distraction from that here.
*Seekers and inquiring agnostics might represent a special case of course. Hardcore, proselytizing anti-Christs are a different matter completely though.
As for whether or not censorship is proper, Jesus cleans the temple. I believe it speaks for itself.
Being tested or tempted by evil is tempering; however, I expected this site to be a place of respite and communion to a greater degree.
I am concerned for the children. The "serpents," Jesus spoke in no uncertain terms, are among us here.
Of course, forgive them.
What do you think?
This post has to do with: A PROBLEM WITH TANGLE.COM ALLOWING PROFESSING ANTI-CHRISTS?
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)