Further Evidence of Censorship

[Previous Page] [Next Page] [Up] [Home Page] [Search] [Contents]

Further Evidence of Censorship (Jun 98)


Honesty in "Academia" (or the lack thereof)

"Intellectual Incest" among the "Washington Crowd"

The implications of Susan McDougals' stand against the tactics of Kenneth Starr

Ignoring the Christian concept of accountability

Old Testament vs. New Testament views regarding homosexuality (an uncensored debate)


(or the lack thereof)

The first two of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17) are:

1. "I am the LORD your God. You shall have no other God's before me."

2. "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

Back in 1985, when I was "between jobs", I discussed my earlier writings regarding the Kingdom of God as taught by Jesus Christ with some religious leaders in Cambridge, Massachusetts (at local churches, Harvard Divinity School, etc.). I was amazed to see how quickly their sincerity "flew out the window" the moment they realized that I was SERIOUSLY applying the teachings of Jesus Christ (and the first two of the Ten Commandments) to the worship of "national sovereignty." It was as if they had "sold their souls" to Satan's bloody national sovereignty beast; they wanted nothing to do with me OR with the Kingdom of God as taught by Jesus Christ. So I "left them in their dust", as Jesus advised in Mark 6:11.

Since then, up to 25 MILLION men, women, and children world-wide (Americans included) have been slaughtered or starved to death by their beloved "national sovereignty system." Could they have saved a significant portion of those lives simply by telling the truth? YES! The day is coming when we will ALL be judged according to God's two most fundamental commandments (Matthew 22:37-40), not only by God, but by all future generations of mankind as well. In these articles, we will further examine some the issues that our "mainstream" news agencies (and many of our religious and academic organizations) are still refusing to address (at a great cost to mankind).

Censorship against the LIVING Word of God in our nation's "religious academia" hasn't changed very much since 1985, in spite of the fact that it was followers of God's two most fundamental commandments who "brought down" the Soviet Union as well as the most notable symbol of the "cold war", the Berlin Wall. Earlier this year, a two-part (4-hour) mini-series called "From Jesus to Christ" was shown on PBS in which many aspects of life and times of Jesus Christ were illustrated and discussed. Although they provided some very interesting new information and mentioned that Jesus spent a lot of time talking about a "Kingdom of God", they didn't even attempt to explain what Jesus meant when he referred to a "Kingdom of God." Their excuse for that was an UNTRUE statement that the Kingdom of God as taught by Jesus Christ was an "enigma that Jesus did not attempt to simplify." They totally IGNORED Matthew 22:37-40 and never even mentioned God's commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself." That's like doing 4-hour program on the life and times of Albert Einstein and never even attempting to explain what he meant by a "theory of relativity"!

It's not unusual for our politicians to "talk around the truth" without ever addressing the real issues, but I thought we could expect higher standards of honesty from our academic leaders. It's not that they don't KNOW what Jesus was really talking about when he taught about the Kingdom of God; many of them do. But apparently, like their counterparts in the pulpit, they too are afraid that if they started telling the truth about the Kingdom of God as taught by Jesus Christ, their listeners would quickly recognize that many of their past (national sovereignty-oriented) teachings had been GROSSLY violating the teachings of Jesus Christ (and the first two of the Ten Commandments). When they finally do decide to start telling the truth in this regard, the popularity of their beloved national sovereignty idol will begin to crumble like the Berlin Wall! Even they should be competent enough to recognize that despite such censorship efforts, there is no way that they can keep the Kingdom of God as taught by Jesus Christ "bottled up" forever.



Editors, The Boston Globe (email) 02 May 1998

In your article, "Clinton backs away from threat to veto emergency spending", I found it quite remarkable that the Associated Press would use the phrase "unpopular foreign aid funds" as if that were a "matter of fact." That is a classic example of "intellectual incest" among the "Washington crowd." If you read "The Foreign Policy Gap" by Steven Kull, I.M. Destler, and Clay Ramsay (published by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, telephone 202-232-7500), you will find that the United Nations and its adequate funding ARE popularly supported, even in many of the so-called "conservative" districts.

At least in matter pertaining to foreign policy, on a scale from 1 to 10, the level of "tolerated bullshit" among the "Washington crowd" currently rates somewhere between 8 and 9. I am highly disappointed to see so little being done by our news agencies these days to "bring them back down to reality."

["Intellectual incest" occurs when people limit their feedback to a relatively small number of others who tend to share their views. Under such conditions, statements that are only partially true tend to be reinforced and "improved upon" until they ALL begin to "believe their own lies too much." This problem is quite common among monarchies and dictatorships, but it's been known to occur even in Washington DC, as is presently the case, and as happened when "the Washington Crowd" decided to seriously commit the United States to the Vietnam War.]



Editors, The Boston Globe (letter) May 6, 1998

Although his tactics against Susan McDougal may currently be legal, I find Mr. Kenneth Starr's conduct in this matter to be far more heinous than anything Susan McDougal has ever been accused of doing. It's like our government is becoming a dictatorship!

The time has come to change those laws that are allowing prosecutors (in general) to so blatantly circumvent our first and Fifth Amendment rights!

[America's flag-worshipping apostles of "national sovereignty" often claim that threats to national sovereignty (unrestrained governmental power) are equivalent to threats to our personal rights and freedoms (personal power). But these two issues are really separate and largely independent. In fact, in spite of their claims about "defending freedom", it is these apostles of national sovereignty who have been most actively attempting to REDUCE the rights and freedoms of Americans in recent years (such are the ways of Satan).

1. Their attempts to pass constitutional amendments such as those to allow state and federal agencies to prohibit "flag burning", establish state-run "school prayer" programs, and to use their tax dollars to financially subsidize religious schools and religious organizations in general, etc. are in effect attempts by America's "Christian Right" organizations to make the Satanically inspired aspects of their teachings the LEGALLY ENFORCED RELIGION of the United States! America's founding fathers were well aware of the danger of such efforts. That is why the very first sentence of the First Amendment to the US Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

2. Over the years, our federal and state governments have developed various "workarounds" (granting various forms of "limited immunity" to witnesses, permitting grand juries to exercise dictatorship-like powers, etc.) in order to circumvent many of the rights which most Americans believe are guaranteed by the "Bill of Rights" amendments to our Constitution. In the past couple of decades, such tactics has been used with increasing frequency, even in civil cases, as Kenneth Starr has so aptly demonstrated. Now he is even attempting to hack away at the privilege of lawyer-client confidentiality! Kenneth Starr has been showing everyone that prosecutors (and lawyers in general) can use such tactics with impunity, even for blatantly partisan political purposes! Such practices (like "jailing witnesses") are likely to become commonplace, unless we put a stop to them. Plaintiffs in civil suites are likely start insisting that such tactics be used in their behalf. Every conversation you have with your friends, relatives, and even lawyers could be recorded (legally or illegally) and used to extort "confessions" in grand jury proceedings, even if the tapes themselves could never be legally admitted as evidence in a real trial.

If you have any doubts as to where this is leading us, I highly recommend you rent a movie called "The Crucible." A true story based on the Salem "witch trials", it shows how those early American prosecutors used Kenneth Starr-like tactics to force people to confess that they were "witches" and to implicate others (or else be "pressed" or hanged to death). After 19 hangings of those who refused to admit that they were witches, the Salem witch trials came to an end, because too many others risked their lives by likewise refusing to admit that they were witches,--thereby destroying the credibility of the entire concept of witch trials. Perhaps we need more people like Susan McDougal who are willing to take similar risks in order to protect OUR rights! Jailing witnesses or threatening to jail witnesses for "refusing to testify" (which includes refusing to lie under oath) is akin to the tactics used by the Spanish Inquisition. Such options should NOT be a feature of our legal system in the United States! ]



Editors, The Boston Globe (email) 09 May 1998

Your articles on the UN Secretary General's visit to Rwanda on Friday and today were shallow and misleading regarding the true CAUSES of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Kofi Annan was right, he DID try to prevent and then to stop that genocide, as did the World Federalist Association, and many other non-governmental organizations who warned US government officials, news agencies, and anyone else who would listen as to what was about to happen there.

You briefly mentioned that the UN Security Council removed most of the UN troops from Rwanda once the genocide erupted, but you never explained WHY they did such a stupid thing. That decision was made first and foremost by the Clinton Administration. And the reason President Clinton made that unfortunate decision (which he now admits was wrong) was because of the incessant anti-UN propaganda effort that was being waged at that time by Senator Bob Dole, Senator Jesse Helms, Congressman New Gingrich, and the so-called "Christian Right Movement." Go back and read the Boston Globe's from early 1994 and you'll see evidence of what I am talking about in nearly every issue. In response to these political pressures, Clinton "bugged out" of Somalia, published a Presidential Memorandum #25 which said that US forces would only be used when "US national interests" were at stake, and "turned his back" on the Rwandan and Bosnian situations. Later, when President Clinton finally decided to ignore such "right-wing" criticisms and apply enough force to stop the fighting, he did in fact stop the fighting in Bosnia. He could have done the same in Rwanda (with much less force) but was pressured not to do so by Senator Dole, Senator Helms, etc.

Your apparent efforts to hide this well-documented cause and effect relationship between the activities of America's "right-wing" politicians and religious leaders and the genocide in Rwanda virtually GUARANTEES that it will happen again. As can been seen from the success of our "right wing" factions to financially cripple the UN, history IS repeating itself. There WILL be more large-scale genocides such as we saw in Rwanda, and your paper WILL be partly responsible for such genocides, because (so far at least), you paper has FAILED to hold those "right wing" factions responsible for the GRUESOME consequences of their actions!

[The genocide in Rwanda (which, by the way, is still continuing on a lesser scale) is a classic example of how Satanically inspired words coming out of the mouths of some people can result in the killing of other people, even MILLIONS of other people. As Jesus said, it's not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, it is what comes out of their mouths that defiles them. My predictions in the above letter are NOT "self-fulfilling prophecies". They are simply a recognition of the fact that we have had hundreds of wars (including much genocide) since the end of World War II. It is naive (actually Satanically inspired) to believe that this never-ending series of national-sovereignty inspired killings is suddenly going to stop now that the "cold war" is over. Recurring wars, genocides, and famines are inherent features of the beastly anarchy that we call the "national sovereignty system."

In the early 1990s, the United Nations offered some hope that the world might finally be able to bring an end to such problems, but America's "Christian Right" and their "mouth pieces" in Congress (Dole, Helms, Lott, Gingrich, Ishtook, etc.) effectively quashed that hope by financially crippling the UN. So it's little wonder that India and Pakistan are "going nuclear", violence is erupting in Kosovo, etc. They are merely reacting to the natural forces of anarchy. What we need to do is to LOOK at those who have been creating that anarchy in the first place!]


(an uncensored debate)

Thank you for your response giving me an opportunity to answer the following questions. As Jesus said in Rev 3:15, "Would that you were cold or hot!"

1. You ask where am I coming from?

I am coming from Matt 22:37-40

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." (NKJ)

These are my credentials, the credentials of the Kingdom of God as taught by Jesus Christ. I refer to these as "God's two most fundamental commandments", because they were the basis of Jesus Christ's entire ministry on earth. Likewise, all of the articles on my web site (www.onesalt.com) conform with these two commandments. Enclosed are copies of some of my earliest articles on that web site, including my article "What is the Gospel of Jesus Christ?" which provides further details regarding "where I am coming from." If following the above two commandments makes me a "whole new wave of Left", then so be it. SOMEBODY has got to do it, because tens of millions (perhaps even hundreds of millions) of people will either live or die (literally) in the next decade or so, depending on how long it takes for God's two most fundamental commandments to finally be taken SERIOUSLY world-wide. THAT is why I am doing this.

Your assertion that my "Biblical exegetical skills are non-existent" doesn't bother me, because when I read traditional interpretations of the Bible (by Jerome, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Barnes, Jamieson, Fauset & Brown, etc.), I see interpretations which have been very seriously corrupted or slanted in order to accommodate the worship of "national sovereignty" (i.e. to obscure the fact that worshipping national sovereignty is ungodly--something which the early Christians adamantly refused to do). Since I have been unable so far to find any Biblical commentaries (other than my own) which DO conform with God's two most fundamental commandments, I'm in the process of presenting such a Biblical commentary on my web site. So far, I've completed commentaries on Genesis through 1st Samuel and on St. John's Book of Revelation. As far as I can tell, mine is the only commentary written so far which interprets the Old Testament scriptures in essentially the same way as Jesus did (i.e. from the point of view of God's two most fundamental commandments). I highly recommend that you read these articles. You will learn a LOT, because they squarely address a number of issues that most theologians would prefer not to talk about.

2. Anyhow, on the homosexuality issue, you say, "First off--you know homosexuality is a sin." No I don't. First you cite Leviticus 18:22 as your "authority" for such a conclusion. But I don't "swallow" the assumption that everything that the Levites taught came from God (or from Moses) even when they claimed that their teachings came from God or Moses (Jesus didn't swallow such an assumption either). When the Levite-trained Samuel instructed Saul to commit genocide against the Amalekites, he claimed to be representing God (as did Joshua and Moses when they were advocating acts of genocide). Do you REALLY believe that Samuel was representing God when he advocated genocide? Jesus didn't. Jesus taught his listeners to recognize false prophets (in the scriptures as well as in real life) by observing their "fruits" (and evaluating those "fruits" relative to God's two most fundamental commandments). The authors of 1st and 2nd Samuel clearly show that the "fruits" of Samuel's conduct in his elderly years were gruesome to say the least, not only for the Amalekites, but for the Children of Israel as well. His anointing of David led to a long, bloody civil war among the Israelites. Fortunately for those who survived, David turned out to be a more worthy king than Saul, but Samuel's procedure for royal succession indeed produced dreadful "fruits".

Leviticus 18.22 is one of those "Laws of Moses" which cannot be justified from the point of view of God's two most fundamental commandments, either then or now. As I pointed out to you earlier, the Levites had "financial reasons" for devising such a law (because they viewed homosexuality as threatening the expected growth rates of their human "flocks"). The REAL sin in this case was the attempt by the Levites to kill or in other ways ruin the lives of homosexuals for their own (Levites') financial gain! They were clearly violating God's commandment to love their neighbors as themselves. And yet, this sin is STILL be promoted by you and others in America's "Christian Right."

For your second reference to authority, you quote St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 where he says that homosexual offenders will not inherent the Kingdom of God. Many have argued over what the term translated here as "homosexual offenders" actually meant. My view is that St Paul was simply wrong on that point; it was a part of his Jewish upbringing that he was unable to sacrifice, at least at that time. St Paul would be one of the first to admit that he wasn't perfect (Romans 3:23). Jesus himself never preached hatred towards homosexuals (never even criticized them), because if he had done so, he would have been violating God's two most fundamental commandments!

You say that God hates homosexuality because it "damages people, enslaves people, makes a mockery of His love, and rejects His standards." My view is that it is people like YOU who are damaging people, enslaving people (in unjustified feelings of guilt), making a mockery of His love, and rejecting His standards (His two most fundamental commandments).

You say that homosexuality is "not natural, not intended, and has no useful end, except to those who indulge in it". Actually, small portions of many species of mammals exhibit homosexuality tendencies. And as I pointed out earlier, God has been creating homosexuals since recorded history began. Perhaps his intent in creating them has been to test our willingness to love our neighbors as ourselves (without placing restrictions on our definition of neighbor). When you say that homosexuality has "no useful end", I ask "useful for whom?" The Church? Does your church consider people to be "useful" only if they produce children? Like Michelangelo and Peter I. Tchaikovski, many homosexuals throughout history have contributed enormously to the benefit of God and mankind. If you think that God does not consider such people to be "useful", then you REALLY need to rethink your position on this.

Finally, you say "Love is not feeling cheap, dirty, infected, hurt, or ashamed. Love is freedom, and only Christ will set you free." Terms like "cheap", "dirty", "infected" or "ashamed" are examples of the guilt labels that you (and others) often attempt to pin on consenting homosexual adults. What consenting adults do in their bedrooms in general (whether homosexual or heterosexual) is really none of your business, unless you can clearly show that what they are doing in their bedrooms is violating God's two most fundamental commandments! If you seek the truth relative to the commandment to love you neighbor as yourself (without placing restrictions on either commandment), then the truths which you learn by doing so will indeed set you free from ungodly ideologies and ungodly teachings such as the Levite's teachings regarding homosexuality. By doing so, you will also become part of the Kingdom of God as taught by Jesus Christ.

So the question remaining for YOU is: Are you going to continue following and promoting the self-serving Levite vision of a "God" who (according to the Levites) frequently advocated genocide, the hatred of homosexuals, and the placing of all sorts of restrictions on one's definition of neighbor? Or are you going to follow and promote the vision of God taught by Jesus Christ (and by some of the Old Testament authors) which is a God that anyone can perceive simply by following His commandments to seek the truth relative to the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself (without restrictions)?

[This provides an insight into some of the differences between "conservative" and "liberal" Christianity.]

For a refreshingly honest review of the WHOLE STORY which the Bible provides us regarding the lives and teachings of King David and King Solomon, check out the following articles on www.onesalt.com

Theocracy vs. Monarchy: How Jesus Christ viewed 1st and 2nd Samuel (Part I)

How Jesus Christ viewed King David: How Jesus Christ viewed 1st and 2nd Samuel (Part II)

How Jesus Christ viewed King Solomon, Psalms and Proverbs (among other things, this article identifies who most likely performed the role which academia refers to as "R" or the "Redactor" and explains why.)

(one grain of salt)

[Previous] How Jesus Christ viewed King Solomon
[Next] Satan's "game plan"!!
[Up] Home Page
[Home] Home Page
[Search] Search www.onesalt.com
[Contents] www.onesalt.com Contents

Last modified on Friday, May 03, 2002