Homosexual Massachusetts: ‘Lynn-Tolerance’ Against Christians | CitizenLink

If the current trend or trajectory continues, Christian-hunts will replace witch-hunts.

...Gordon is not on a level playing field with the City of Salem or the Lynn Public School system. The latter two are public governmental entities. The First Amendment of our Constitution protects Gordon, a private, faith-based organization, from the coercive power of the state. No one is forced to attend Gordon College or agree with its theology, and the school has the Constitutional right to set its own parameters for association. It is our government that may not discriminate on the basis of religion, and yet that is precisely what Salem and now Lynn have done. Local governmental entities must not overstep their Constitutional boundaries in an attempt to silence and intimidate those with whom they disagree. People of all faiths should clearly denounce these violations of our religious liberty.

Source: Massachusetts: ‘Lynn-Tolerance’ Against Christians | CitizenLink.

Tell me why Christians were supposed to be tolerant of homosexuals back in the 1960's and '70's? That is what I was told back then: we are to be tolerant. Had the Christians known then what is becoming clear now, would they have advocated "tolerance"?

Frankly, I never condoned homosexuality. I didn't beat up homosexuals but rather stood up for them against such attacks. That was before I was a Christian.

The thanks I'm getting now is being called false names and being told that I should be tortured for being opposed to homosexuality.

Hmmm, this is why Noah preached what he did. How long will Christians remain Christians, meaning how long will they remain non-violent in the face of being attacked?

How many in the Homosexual Movement actually realize that they represent the temptation that is the evil of violence and killing? How many of them realize that sexual depravity is tied directly to violence (and greed)?

How much difference is there between what the Takfiri "Islamic State" is doing vis-a-vis Christians and what is going on in Lynn, Massachusetts? Just how depraved are the depraved capable of becoming right here in the US? What are the homosexuals willing to do do be able to continue breaking down the remaining barriers between sexual morality and sexual anarchy?

"Walter Lee Williams admits to federal sex offense":

Williams and Arlington were both members of the Buddhist Universal Association in Los Angeles, which espoused an ideology of “extreme sexual freedoms,” according to the FBI.

Walter Lee Williams:

As a teenager in Atlanta in the 1960s, he was inspired by Martin Luther King to get involved in the civil rights movement, and in 1978 he switched to gay activism due to Anita Bryant’s Save Our Children campaign.


Tom Usher

Save Our Children is right. Save the world!


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.