The following is my comment on this linked article, Why Do 'Pro-Life' Pols Like Paul Ryan Protect Weapons of Mass Murder? by John Nichols. The Nation:
Look John Nichols, you are probably my favorite writer for The Nation. I find myself agreeing with you quite often. I especially like your economic[s] articles. However, this article of your screams out the question, if you are for gun control (or even elimination) and are appealing to Paul Ryan on the grounds of his inconsistency regarding guns and abortions, then why aren't you against abortion if you're for gun control?
Now, I realize there are degrees of gun control and also differing positions on when and why abortion, but my point is still valid. There are those afterall who are 100% for abortion-on-demand (no questions asked) and also for a 100% gun ban. Are they radically inconsistent in your view then? What I'm saying is that you can't rip Ryan for being against gun control but also against abortion when you aren't also then against those who are for gun control but against abortion control (or banning).
My view is that the gun-libertarians definitely have the historical facts on their side concerning the American Revolution and the reason for the 2nd amendment. That doesn't mean that there haven't been scoundrels down through our history who have abused the 2nd amendment for purposes of slavery and oppressing the indigenous population, but those abuses do not nullify the fact that federal tyranny is a very real possibility, as much as we'd like to think we can simply just trust the system now. We couldn't trust it economically. The banksters weren't above causing people to become homeless, etc. I'm sure quite a few people would be alive today if it hadn't been for the Great Recession brought on by deregulation and which downturn was clearly predicted by Brooksley Born and others way back. So if they could do it economically, why put it past them violently?
The right way to go about all of this is two-fold: 1) psychological help and screening and vastly reducing the drugging of the youth with dangerous psychotropics and 2) a Constitutional amendment if you can get one worked out that will protect against the potential for a dictatorship arising. I'd say number 1 would be much easier and likely more fruitful.
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)