ALEKSANDR DVORKIN'S SECULAR RUSSIAN INQUISITION LARGELY MODELS WHAT SOME IN THE U.S., SUCH AS CHIP BERLET, WANT FOR AMERICA AND THE WORLD

Aleksandr Dvorkin, a professor and head of the Church History department (the exact department name is unclear to me as of the time of this entry) at St. Tikhon Orthodox University in Moscow since 1995, is pushing Russian legislation to ban proselytizing on the supposed territory of another and established religion.

This draft defines what correct missionary activities are. For example it forbids missionary activity on the territory of some other faith or other religious organization....

If his view prevails, the Russian Orthodox Church (or those who seek to use it for crass purposes) will lay claim to established territory and it could end up becoming the one and only, de facto, established and protected religion of Russia. All the reasons the United States does not have such an arrangement could then come to prevail in Russia.

"RUSSIA: A new 'Inquisition'," by Geraldine Fagan. Forum 18. May 26, 2009. [apparently reprinted by WorldWide Religious News.] That article helps inform.

Aleksandr Dvorkin: The Chip Berlet of Russia

Right now, I liken this Aleksandr Dvorkin as the Chip Berlet of Russia. They wouldn't see exactly eye-to-eye I more than suspect, but their call for the secular state to coerce those they define as dangerous extremists is nearly identical. I am an extremist. I am for extreme goodness. That's good, not bad or dangerous. Jesus was a radical extremist. He was for radical (root) change to make the whole tree (each of us and all of us together) good. That's good, not bad or dangerous except to those who put evil for good and bitter for sweet.

Jesus was non-coercive to all outside the faith: A voluntary faith

As a professing Christian and if one doesn't know the answer is inherent within Christianity and the, then one is to ask, seek, and knock. The only coercion Jesus Christ used was within the voluntary spaces. No one was forced into the Temple he cleaned. No one was forced to follow him. Concerning other religions, he simply spoke and did his harmless and actually beneficial good deeds and left the rest to God's will. The blind follow the blind into the ditch of their own making. Jesus doesn't shove them into a ditch or dig one for them. They ignore him.

The paradox of God supposedly doing evil versus Satan who is evil

This can raise many supposed unsolvable paradoxes concerning the true nature of God versus Satan, but so be it. All questions can be and should be reconciled, and such reconciliation ought to be understood as being as rational as rational can be. This is a topic the scope of which is deep and likewise requires asking, seeking, and knocking. It is not handed to disbelievers on a silver platter or rather force fed them. It is a filtering process where we are truly free to overcome the negative conditioning of the naysayers from the proverbial beginning.

Russian Orthodox Church: Don't be hypocritical and anti-Christ

The Russian Orthodox Church in spirit and letter should be against this latest iteration of this legislation with its coercive "religious" intent. If the cults being defined as predatory-missionary and destructive are not allowed to speak outside the Orthodox Church by that church or the secular state that church supports, that Orthodox Church is not following Jesus and is therefore hypocritical and anti-Christ in that regard.

Don't be Satan

If the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Moonies (Unification Church), and Scientologists are preaching falsehood (and as a Christian, I say they are), then point out those falsehoods and do what Jesus did and still does, which was and is to let souls be filtered according to their hearts and not by the force of the secular state that is inherently Satanic.

All religions are cults; secularism is a cult of secularism

The underlying trick here is the supposed protection the legislation would provide to the naive and gullible; however, the legislation is coercive and favors "established" religions (all cults; Jesus established a cult – a cult to be good) that historically and arguably have been and can again become the instruments of predatory destruction every bit as much as those other "cults" it, or it's supporters or proxies of some aspects of that church, claims or claim to be suppressing for good reason.

If you use "cult" as a pejorative, it doesn't mean that I have to follow you in doing that. I don't.

Bring forth the Christian Commons or be a hypocrite

What this legislation does is prevent voluntary betterment. The Russian Orthodox Church does not preach or carry out the call of Jesus (his "commandments"). They have never brought the Christian Commons concept to fruition even after many, many centuries. They don't call for it even yet, though I've put it out there in plain view and parts of that church are aware of it and could readily embrace and support it. Opposed to the Christian Commons, this legislation seeks to lock in a lower status quo and to prevent that Russian Orthodox Church from leaking membership to better theology and a better way of life, even the best way.

The Zionist mentality of the abused becoming excused abuser will end

It is hypocritical legislation. Russia is not the Orthodox Church or the whole Church or part of that body. Russia has persecuted the Russian Orthodox in the past, yet this legislation sees the persecuted becoming the persecutor again. It reminds one of the Zionists in Israel persecuting out of supposed fear of again being persecuted.

It is not Christian. Immediately and in no uncertain terms, the Russian Orthodox Church should distance itself from this twisted legislation and all further iterations of it.

Heathens are not part of the body of Christ

I don't know who is in charge of the St. Tikhon Orthodox University in Moscow, but Aleksandr Dvorkin has no business speaking anti-Christ precepts from a Christian university. I don't seek his harm. If he wants to preach anti-Christ percepts, let him do it from outside a professed Christian organization and institution. He is speaking as a heathen even if he doesn't realize it and even if he believes he has only good intentions.

Russian Orthodox Church congregationalism

Let me add that I agree with the congregational approach of the Russian Orthodox Church over the Roman Catholic practice that excludes the "laity." The congregational approach of the Russian Orthodox Church has the whole membership choosing its leadership. The only thing lacking is unanimity from the outset. This is a paradox for them. It must be remembered that the Russian Orthodox Church was the church of the Tsars. That was their original error, just as with Rome and Constantine I, etc.

Plainly and Simply, L. Ron Hubbard was, and Scientology is, Satanic

L. Ron Hubbard was a mess. He was a Satanist who practiced all sorts of iniquitous behaviors. It's all documented. However, the way to end the destruction is by turning to it's opposite. Yes, its opposite is its destruction, but it's harmless and more so beneficial and bountiful. That's all.

Scientologists are not freed by truth in Scientology. They are tricked into iniquitous so-called liberties. This does not mean that those who go into it know they are going into something that has at its very essence, evil. L. Ron Hubbard was defiled and spread it. He created an institution to continue that. It's true.

Kirstie Alley, John Travolta, Tom Cruise, and all others should get out of it. Why are they following someone who was so immersed in anti-Christ things and who never repented of any of it? Scientology is unwholesome. Get out of it.

I don't call the secular state to ban Scientology or any of the other groups. I call for the state not to ban me. I call for all states to let me speak; and if my views are not adopted by the people, so be it. Let all speak outside their organizations. Let them convince hearts, minds, and souls (or whatever they believe) as to which way is best. Stop all evil coercion of evil. You see, that way I am right.

Donate


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.