There's a fellow by the name of Morris Herman who vlogs (video blogs) on YouTube. I have mixed emotions about his work, as I'm sure he does about mine. His most recent video is embedded below. I'm going to address only the first part concerning Joseph Stalin, as I think that setting the record straight on that will also set the proper stage for appraising Qaddaffi's regime in Libya, at least as concerns this video of Morris's.
Qaddaffi was not a Marxist, per se, because he was also, ostensibly at least, a Muslim. A Muslim can agree with some tenets of Marxism but certainly will reject materialism.
Anyway, concerning Stalin, let me say briefly that it is not generally disputed that Stalin was ruthless and brutal and despite the opening of the Soviet archives. The Gulag Archipelago (millions in force-labor camps, most apparently died) is not a falsehood and neither is the Great Purge (1,000 executions per day, minimum; "numerous mass graves filled with executed victims of the terror") or the Soviet famine of 1932–1933 (millions starved to death due to inhuman, barbaric treatment — see: Ukrainian Holodomor — and the Law of Spikelets, which was part of the cause for the famine. The farmers were not allowed to eat their fill of their harvest. In other words, Stalin and Lenin before him, muzzled the oxen to death, an absolutely stupid and monstrous thing to do.
Let me point out at this point that the torturing that went on in Abu Salim Prison under Qaddaffi is well-documented. It happened. Also, Qaddaffi stashed tens of billions (some say it might have been as high as $200 billion) out of the reach of the Libyan people, 30+% of whom were reportedly still living in poverty (which many homes and possessions clearly suggests) despite all the claims of how wonderful Qaddaffi was. Meanwhile, Qaddaffi lived in nothing less than opulence and splendor while lavishing his children to the point that some were apparently horribly spoiled, even perverted brats.
The Trotskyists' critique of Stalin are apt. Stalin was anti-democratic and elitist. His top bureaucrats lived as multimillionaires and he himself live in luxury while tens of millions lived rather meager lives at best. Stalin was also a totalitarian. Anyone who disagreed with him was killed or sent to a labor camp or into exile — hardly a man I would choose as leader.
Now, with all of that in mind, watch the following video (bear in mind that I don't entirely disagree with some of Morris's sentiments — we agree on plenty of things at least partially):
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)