David: Candida Moss and her article, “Jesus was not a Pacifist” Candida needs to be questioned about what she considers “social injustice and corruption” and possibly held accountable for her statements encouraging acts of aggression against the police and society…just like Obama should have been. She needs to keep her religious beliefs of how Jesus acted out of the political realm…isn’t that what the liberals have preached to us for centuries???the First Amendment. Candida Moss then writes Jesus “didn’t enjoy the privileges of white men today.” She considers the white man to be "dominate"...is involuntary servitude dominance to her? Her religious beliefs are racist, bigoted statements that require a response. White men (in fact, practically all ex-husbands) today are FORCED to make child support statements in violation of the laws of nature (property rights); and since she brings in Jesus on this, of the words of Jesus, “do not I have the right to do with that which is mine own?” And what does Candida Moss believe on government issued marriage licenses, would Jesus approve of these too? White men and their families are also FORCED through thousands of big, corporate, government redistribution programs to give to blacks and minorities in violation of the above and the involuntary servitude clause of the 13th Amendment…once again. White men who employ others are FORCED to give jobs to black men because of civil rights laws…in violation of natural law. In fact, since she shows she does not support white men and their property rights, her beliefs disagree with scientific facts (the laws of nature) and are thus merely utopian, fairy tale, superstitious religious beliefs in violation of, again, the First Amendment. Candida Moss then writes “his overturning of tables in the Temple…In the Gospel of John…uses a whip to drive people out of the Temple….he also engaged in at least one violent act of civil protest in order to highlight the social injustice and corruption of his day.” Is this a doctrinal statement of the liberal, communist Church she attends, to take what He does in the Temple (which He is Lord of) and transfer this, what she considers “violence”, to then encourage the liberals to violence in a society…for what her liberal communist clan considers “social injustice and corruption”? Candida needs to be questioned about what she considers “social injustice and corruption” and possibly held accountable for her statements encouraging acts of aggression against the police and society…if nothing else, she is imposing her religious beliefs upon politics, in violation of the First Amendment, and she needs to be held accountable by the police for inciting violence…just like Obama should have been.