Thumbnail of Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson

I have problems with the so-called right/left projection in the Huffington Post article. I don't agree with the "conservatives," but I don't agree with the "liberal's" approach either.

The smart thing to do would be to discuss both sides in schools and even more. Afterall, the "right" and "left" as projected in that article both attempt to monopolize all issues and act as if only that "right" is the alternative to that "left" and vice versa. The children are short changed in either case.

Both Thomas Jefferson and John Calvin should be read and discussed. What is termed the Enlightenment should be discussed in terms of support and negative criticisms against it.

The Judeo-Christian, Deist, and other aspects of the Founding Fathers should be taught. The concept of "separation of church and state" should be taught, but the free exercise aspect should be given just as much emphasis as the no-establishment aspect. The historical, constitutional arguments should be covered. There are court cases where both majority and dissenting opinions should be taught.

"American exceptionalism" should be taught as a view that some, but not all, Americans hold. The so-called U.S. "free-enterprise system," should also be discussed in terms of pros and cons and whether or not there really is any such thing or whether it's a target put forth by certain theorists. The pros and cons as held by the various sides concerning regulation versus privatization, etc., should be taught.

Personally, I still use B.C. and A.D. because I have no idea what the so-called Common Era is supposed to signify greater than the birth of Jesus Christ. If there hadn't been a Jesus Christ, there wouldn't be a separation regardless. There would be a calendar with at least as many years as the Judaic, which right now stands at the year 5770.

As for the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment does address the right to bear arms. Of course, it is within the context of there being a need at the time of passage for a well-regulated militia. The issues surrounding that should be taught.

I'm not sure exactly how to teach about hip-hop "as an example of a significant cultural movement." It is a music genre that's spread around the world. It appears to be as rock and roll and jazz and other genres that are certainly historical facts. Again, the pros and cons from the various perspectives should be taught. The public schools don't have to take positions for or against in general. Hip-hop has its dark side, of course. There have been gangster rappers who have called for killing police officers for instance. Such things (killing police officers) shouldn't be hidden or supported or condoned. Of course, revolutions should also be studied from all the various angles. Not all police officers everywhere are always on the side of real law-enforcement. There are rogue cops gone bad, so to speak. There is also the danger of the police state.


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.