Well, Russell Brand has managed to raise quite a stir for a little season. Read Russell's article here [Warning: Sadly, Russell resorts to profanity]: Russell Brand on revolution: "We no longer have the luxury of tradition".
My take is that Russell Brand is an anti-representative democracy, Hindu, socialist. I say "anti-representative democracy" because he lacks a vision of what government would be after the revolution he does envision.
I, by contrast, am a consensus, democratic-socialist (non-Marxist), Christian. A consensus democratic-socialist is non-coercive.
Like Russell, I do not vote. I fully agree with him that the system is fatally rigged (my word "rigged" but clearly implied from Russell's words in my view). In other words, humanity must start from scratch framing a unifying world ideology.
What I can't say at this point, can't say because I have only been exposed to Russell's thinking four times, is just how much Russell knows about Jesus Christ and, therefore, Christianity proper. At this point, I suspect he knows a New Age version, which versions are inherently always wrong. I would be surprised if he has read even one of the four canonical Gospels for instance, let alone studied what is widely currently viewed as orthodox Christianity.
That Russell wants us to not destroy the planet but to care for it and each other is good. The idea (is it his view?) that the teachings of Jesus Christ have outlived their usefulness, however, is wrong. He clearly has a problem with current "organized" religions/denominations calling themselves "Christian." That's fine. So do I. If he is, however, suggesting that dissolving the differences between them and coalescing around the actual words of Jesus Christ is somehow passÃ©, then his path and mine diverge there and forever.
New Age syncretism is definitely not the right path.
If Russell Brand has given it any thought or not, I can't say; but, he may not like Jesus's teachings because were he to adhere to them, he would no longer have the imagined luxury of being a womanizer, to use his word about himself, which I believe he did not use simply as a joke.
So, I see Russell calling to others to follow him on a better path but that he doesn't want to get on the best path rather than falling short.
I believe Jesus about the Strait and Narrow. I trust him. Russell does not.
Nevertheless, may God bless him. Hopefully, Russell can accept it.
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)