On Cenk Uygur's Analysis of Phil Robertson's Solution Re: Islamic State (IS), et al.

PhilCenk

There's so much wrong with the following video that it's difficult to know where to begin and end.

First, Phil Robertson's beard has zero to do with it. There are countless clean-shaven biblical Fundamentalist who hold to the same view. That's not very important though.

Second, Phil Robertson is not a pacifist and, correct me if I'm wrong, neither is Cenk Uygur. Since Phil told Cenk not to forget that Phil uses the Declaration of Independence as his bookmark in his Bible, Phil was attempting to slow the likes of Cenk down long enough to think before condemning Phil. For when Phil spoke of converting the IS, et al., he didn't mean necessarily to Phil's vision of Christianity but to perhaps that but within the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which principles preclude pretty much all of what Cenk was suggesting about Phil.

Let me make perfectly clear that I don't agree with Phil's version of the Gospel message now that it has become clear that Phil means that human beings are to turn them or burn them. I have written openly elsewhere and will repeat it here now that were I a militarist, I would advocate total annihilation of all ISIS types. What is Cenk Uygur's view on it?

Is Cenk Uygur opposed to violence against the Islamic State? I seriously doubt it but am open to hearing that Cenk is 100% anti-war, anti-violence: a total pacifist.

Where Phil goes wrong biblically is where he confuses what humans are allowed to do under Christianity versus what we Christians are to leave to God. Jesus made completely clear that we are not to fight back, as hard as the temptation might be. We are not to resort to violence under any circumstances. We are to trust in God that God, who is in spirit (beyond physics), will take care of everything in the eternal, including even the souls of innocent children killed by depraved militarists, including those in the US military.

Please understand that were we required as Christians to fight as IS fights, it would be necessary that we destroy everyone who kills the innocent. That would necessarily include the US military. Be consistent!

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. (Matthew 13:24-30 KJV)

The reapers are not we humans in this "here and now." Don't be literal here. Keep in mind the whole Gospel context, which teaches anti-war. Don't engage in it.

There are only two kinds. Individual humans are a tare (weed) or a shaft of wheat.

All are reaped and sorted.

The tares are the damned according to their unrepented sins.

No mistakes are made.

It is done with perfection: flawlessly.

And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. (Luke 9:51-56 KJV)

Of course, we are to fight but not in the way they do. We are to pray and to wait on God, who is there and knows all and will make everything right for the patient and persevering.

It is hard, but it's the truth.

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.