Yes, you can, and should, tell the Palestinians that they ought to all employ non-violence

I read often about how no one should tell the Palestinians to be non-violent. Most of them cite Gandhi's statement about how he didn't rule out violence. Well, Gandhi was a disciple of Ram, whom Gandhi admitted was a myth. I am not a disciple of a myth. I am a disciple of Jesus, who lived and still lives.

Jesus walked the Earth as a 100% human being – exactly as much flesh and blood in kind as am I. Sure, there were, and are, genetic differences; but we are brothers in the same species. I have declared that I agree with Jesus about turning the other cheek and going to the cross for the various principles if needs be. No one would look forward to it. Jesus didn't. He knew though the message that would be sent by it: How to show real love, as God sacrifices all the time for us — constantly.

That's lost on nearly everyone. They don't stop to consider. They just disrespect what they don't understand – what they stubbornly refuse to grasp.

In addition, before anyone uses Gandhi as the authority, please remember that Gandhi was also ethnically and racially bigoted. Did you know that? Yes, he was offended for the Indians that the Brits treated them as "niggers." Now it's true that the British did that. In fact, British literature of the day was full of actually referring to Indians as quote/unquote "niggers," which of course was and remains reprehensible but not just because it was targeted at Indians but also at all dark-skinned peoples. Gandhi was not getting after the British for feeling superior to the Black Africans, but mainly Gandhi's fellow Indians, who Gandhi felt had shown their intellect and worth through their long and "glorious" history, philosophies, and religions, etc.

Oh, I don't doubt that if pressed on the matter, Gandhi would have hedged his way around coming out with racial slurs worthy of a KKK Grand Dragon. He was incapable of verbal tap dancing. He was rather admired for his one-liners, quick wit, etc. Many Brits sided with his cause on account of such qualities. Also, I'm not judging and condemning Gandhi as if he were no better than the worst mass murderer, so please don't jump to wild conclusions on account of what I might not say here in his defense.

Oh, I've heard the racists' history about how savage the Black men were, etc. Well, whips and lording it over them wasn't exactly the way to win hearts and minds. I'm not condoning the law of the jungle that certainly included strangers being taken and killed and eaten just because they were strangers incapable of communicating. Some of those strangers though had predecessors who made the natives xenophobic for cause. Regardless, the answer lies in communicating peace no matter how difficult or how long it takes. Fighting is not a solution but an evil on top of evil.

So, Jesus says to the Palestinians, and regardless of whatever Gandhi said or did (that doesn't hold a candle to Jesus in the final analysis, by the way), to turn the other cheek.

I have been saying that if they will do that, they will gain huge support that they have never enjoyed before. When I say this, I don't for a moment say that there have not been those in Palestine who have been practicing this. I am saying that they all should turn to it.

Now, exactly why there are people who disrespect this view is a multifaceted stone. I won't lump them all together, but I will say that the spirit of vengeance runs deep in many and most of them. They want to do to others what has been done to them and to those with whom they side. Now, that's just plain anti-Christ, which also makes it stupid. I can say that having been there for decades too.

This article was written in direct response to Ira Chernus' article on CommonDreams.org, "The Hypocrisy of Preaching Nonviolence to Palestinians."

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.