My reply over on the article:
You wrote: "If people want to continue to debate the numbers almost 70 years after the fact....let them." That means you are opposed to prosecuting those others term deniers (under some vague definition). Fine. Why is it illegal in much of Europe?
However, you repeatedly say, "Who cares." The people who are prosecuted care. The vast majority of Palestinian Arabs care, Christian, Muslim, and otherwise. I care. I care a great deal.
As for there never having been anyone quite like Hitler, everyone is unique. What your statement says though is that whoever ordered and carried out the Holodomor was not as evil in your eyes. Perhaps you mean something other than evil. Regardless, what's your point? I say that those who ordered and carried out the Holodomor were as bad if not worse even if one completely accepts the Zionist narrative about what they call the Holocaust, which I don't accept. I question many, many aspects about it for good reason, and it matters whether you think so or say so or not.
Much of the narrative developed to milk sympathy to further the Zionist Project in Palestine was a pack of lies. There were no shrunken heads of Jews. There were no lampshades made from Jewish tattooed-skin. There was no soap made from the fat of Jewish bodies. Even the Zionists have had to admit those were all lies they told the whole world. There were no extermination camps in Germany, even though it was originally claimed by many Zionists that there had been. They were there in the camps and saw it firsthand, but they were blatantly lying. It matters. Where do the lies end? That's the point.
If the number is six million, they have more to milk for sympathy. If the number is substantially lower or non-existent, as some contend, then all the sympathy and all the elevating the "event" to the worst genocide in human history was misplaced and had the people known the truth rather than believing Zionist lies right after the war, the Zionists might not have been allowed to persecute and terrorize the Palestinian Arabs and conduct the Nakba (ethnic cleansing of some 800-700 thousand Arabs). There might be more people now willing to stand up to the Zionists to stop them from continuing their Project of taking more and more and more Palestinian land just because the Zionists have the weapons and backing from the US.
I didn't hear you say that you oppose the Zionists ethnically cleansing the Palestinian Arabs up to the point the rest of the world had been mistakenly willing to look the other way for, among other reasons, faulty theology, such as Christian Zionism, which is a misnomer, as there is no such thing as a real Christian who supports Zionism.
As for questioning your intelligence, you're opposing me rather than agreeing. I don't see your opposition as being bright. As for getting angry, you're rather presumptuous. I see nothing in my comments indicating anger; and, if you choose to ignore me, it's your loss.
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)