Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Johann]

You are touching an explosive issue. Many Seventh-day Adventist might have a similar problem. Although a great part of white SDA have traditionally been in agreement with Republican ideals, some are waking up to fear the growth of this fundamentalist lack of tolerance of Christians not adhering to such basic doctrines as keeping the Sunday holy. Southern Baptists and Catholics seem likely to unite in condemning any ordination that does not fit into their liking.

So this is explosive!

[Bob Pickle]

Di,

It has been long established, and forgotten, that civil-and-relgious-freedom-founder Roger Williams believed, and Seventh-day Adventism believes, that the government can enforce the second table of the 10 Commandments as it pertains to outward actions. For this reason, the government can prohibit the human sacrifice of a consenting adult, or polygamy between consenting adults.

I am therefore curious as to why you believe that prohibiting homosexual behavior would be an unconstitutional mixing of church and state.

[Gregory]

. . . the government can enforce the second table of the 10 Commandments as it pertains to outward actions.

You are partially correct.  There are limitations on the ability of the government to enforce those. 

Most knowledgeable people would say that the limitations are few.  I would not argue that.  But, there are limitations.

On the side of your statement, your reference to the decision on polygamy supports your view.

However, there is a decision of the Court that involved race that established privacy rights to bedrooms, to put it bluntly.  Therefore, I will lsuggest that Di has some grounds that support her position.



   

[Gregory]

Loving v. Virginia (1967) is the seminal case on this issue.  In that case, police officers burst into the bedroom of a married couple hoping to find them engaged in sexual intercourse.  They failed.  However, they did find a marriage certificate on the wall of their bedroom.  As a result they were arrested and convicted of a crime against Virginia law.  All such laws were declared unconstitutional, primarily on the basis of race, by the 1967 Supreme court ruling.  However, aspects of that ruling granted a Constitiutional right to marry and of bedroom privacy.  Due to that, some believe that such may apply to the right of homosexuals to marry.

In the August 4, 2010 federal district court decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which overturned California's Proposition 8 (which restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples), Judge Vaughn Walker cited Loving v. Virginia to conclude that "the [constitutional] right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner regardless of gender".[14] On more narrow grounds, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.[15][16]

The above is one legal ruling that speaks to this issue. 

[tinka]

Talking about the Trayvon case- if any has opinion on first news cast,  it would be most interesting to hear what first opinions of it was.
Here is mine, I could be totally wrong and will be anxious to see outcome of case.

When I first heard it- my first instinct was this "awful guy is calling 911 and setting himself up for a "murder get away".  The info he was giving certainly was all a kind of details (pre thought)so he could get away with it.  I thought that because he was far away from him and his story was I thought leading into something and he seemed to be stalking Trayvon

Why do I not believe what this guy is telling that he did in self defense. Why did he not stop his aggression to watch Trayvon and just go away. He first said he was at great distance from Trayvon at first.

To me the descriptions and accounting of every move of Trayvon was being told to 911. Too much going on there as it seems he was purposely giving account for an excuse to do what he intended. How would 911 know he was telling truth and not fictional it might have been set up to call 911 so he could claim self defense when he was out to do exactly what happened.  This is a hard one for me but that was my first impression. anybody else have ideas or thoughts of first impressions?

Had to make corrections to make a little more sense to what I meant. Was in great hurry.

[Bob Pickle]

. . . the government can enforce the second table of the 10 Commandments as it pertains to outward actions.

You are partially correct.  There are limitations on the ability of the government to enforce those. 

Most knowledgeable people would say that the limitations are few.  I would not argue that.  But, there are limitations.

On the side of your statement, your reference to the decision on polygamy supports your view.

However, there is a decision of the Court that involved race that established privacy rights to bedrooms, to put it bluntly.  Therefore, I will lsuggest that Di has some grounds that support her position.

When speaking of the Adventist view of religious liberty, it is appropriate to appeal to scriptural arguments. Therefore it should be pointed out that an earthly court's decision on marriage can never overturn or alter what God says an earthly government can or cannot enforce. An earthly court may overturn or alter what an earthly legislature says, but not what God says.

Therefore, regardless of what6 the U.S. Supreme Court thinks, God has declared that earthly governments can regulate the 7th commandment, which can include the prohibition of homosexual behavior.

But we aren't talking about privacy rights in bedrooms anymore, are we? With all the people who have come out of the closet and have admitted to committing crimes, no cops need to burst into bedrooms at all these days. But none of these folks are prosecuted, even though prosecution need not intrude into any so-called privacy rights, since the perpetrators have already publicly confessed. Why no prosecution? Because these crimes have been "legalized," even if the courts have never called such crimes "legal"?

[Gregory]

.. .God has declared that earthly governments can regulate the 7th commandment, which can include the prohibition of homosexual behavior.

Based upon what you say above, God allows earthly courts to regulate homosexual behavior by saying that such is not illegal if it takes place between consenting, competent adults, but it is criminal when it takes place between people who are not consenting, competent adults.

That is regulation, Bob.

[princessdi]

You know, I agree with you, to a point and not for the same reasons.

The race problem started the moment he was elected and hadn't done one thing.  In fact, there had to be several "letters" written in teh Adventist Review to call for tolerance and cooperation among caucasian Adventist in the US.  Then we just aren't going to say anything about the Republicans who determined to counter anything he had to say, even if he was agreeing with them.  There has been also  a boldness to the racism with whites feeling free to disrespect the POTUS with images of apes, facist leaders, etc. So, whatever came after he was actually elected may or may not have added to the issues, but the problem started election night, when many, many white(and white racist) citizens of the USA realize with horror that they were goin to have a African American president.  You are right,t he republicans are so scary that their candidate is shameless in his racism and elitism. 

About Trayvon, only one thing need be said....if it were reverse there is no way the shooter would have walked free all that time, and we all know this.  All the crazies on both sides notwithsatanding his family is only asking for due process, not even a promise of a guilty verdict just that the right and legal process be followed. i am with them on that. 

And even with all that said, he has to do his job as our civil leader, not our religious leader. 

Ok, Princess, you make a very good point. Although I am not at all aligned with the Democrats on most issues, I find them far less frightening than the Republican hard-liners who claim that as this country was founded on Christian morals and values, we should have a government that enforces a fundamentalist version of Christianity. Obama has created a backlash that is driving the fundamentalist movement into a more mainstream norm. At this point I fear that he has awakened a sleeping monster that cannot be put back into somnolent bliss. Another specter he has seemed to raise is that of racial aggression. The Trayvon issue, ands so many other factors have awakened something that I am afraid will create a war on the black race that will not end well. Blacks are a very small minority in every part of the the world other than Africa. There is no animosity toward the black race that equals that of the Hispanics. Between white and hispanic issues with the recent surge of black violent crime in various metro areas, the black population of the Americas and Europe is facing something potentially very damaging on a regionally existential level. And within the Arab world, the blacks are known as al abid, or "the slaves."

Obama was looked forward to as the great uniter, but there has probably never been a more divisive president in the history of the US, other than Abraham Lincoln. My fear is that his extremism has validated the opposite extreme, and I believe that the other side is far larger and more powerful.

[princessdi]

Why thank you Gregory!  That is even better than my argument that most people are against homosexuality[for others] because they believe it to be a sin, which is religious.  In this country where we are supposed to be practicing the separation of church and state, state cannot make or enforce laws based on religion.    I was leaning toward the religious aspect, because of my point about encouraging this type of legislation based on religion, would again come back to bite us with decisions about us....based on religion.  However, add a lawful aspect to it makes the argument even stronger.  Also, once you start basing civil law on religion, ALL freedom of religion goes out the door. 

Once again, I will say, if anyone approached my church to host their same sex marriage, I would again open my big mouth and lead the board in a big fat no...but then guide them to the nearest courthouse where they actually have a right to a civil union. 

Tinka, I am proud of you..........you done good.  Even though for reason stated in my first post today, it is not a difficult call for me, I do like your reasoning.

Loving v. Virginia (1967) is the seminal case on this issue.  In that case, police officers burst into the bedroom of a married couple hoping to find them engaged in sexual intercourse.  They failed.  However, they did find a marriage certificate on the wall of their bedroom.  As a result they were arrested and convicted of a crime against Virginia law.  All such laws were declared unconstitutional, primarily on the basis of race, by the 1967 Supreme court ruling.  However, aspects of that ruling granted a Constitiutional right to marry and of bedroom privacy.  Due to that, some believe that such may apply to the right of homosexuals to marry.

In the August 4, 2010 federal district court decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which overturned California's Proposition 8 (which restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples), Judge Vaughn Walker cited Loving v. Virginia to conclude that "the [constitutional] right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner regardless of gender".[14] On more narrow grounds, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.[15][16]

The above is one legal ruling that speaks to this issue.

[Bob Pickle]

.. .God has declared that earthly governments can regulate the 7th commandment, which can include the prohibition of homosexual behavior.

Based upon what you say above, God allows earthly courts to regulate homosexual behavior by saying that such is not illegal if it takes place between consenting, competent adults, but it is criminal when it takes place between people who are not consenting, competent adults.

That is regulation, Bob.

Rom. 13 indicates that God expects civil governments to punish wickedness, not simply decide that certain abominations aren't really wicked after all, and thus don't need to be punished.

Consider GC 270-271:

"And the historian presents together the atheism and the licentiousness of France, as given in the prophecy: 'Intimately connected with these laws affecting religion, was that which reduced the union of marriage--the most sacred engagement which human beings can form, and the permanence of which leads most strongly to the consolidation of society--to the state of a mere civil contract of a transitory character, which any two persons might engage in and cast loose at pleasure. . . . If fiends had set themselves to work to discover a mode of most effectually destroying whatever is venerable, graceful, or permanent in domestic life, and of obtaining at the same time an assurance that the mischief which it was their object to create should be perpetuated from one generation to another, they could not have invented a more effectual plan than the degradation of marriage. . . . Sophie Arnoult, an actress famous for the witty things she said, described the republican marriage as "the sacrament of adultery."'--Scott, vol. 1, ch. 17."

Thus, when the state reduces the sacred union of marriage to a mere civil contract of a transitory nature, it errs, and it fails in doing its God-given duty.

Consider also the description of the philosophy of history in Ed 173-175. Each nation, each government, is being tested as to whether it will fulfill God's purpose, uphold righteousness, and protect and upbuild the nation. Each nation and government that fails to do this will eventually be overcome.

[tinka]

and that determines my sediments as the handwriting is on the wall and can tell where certain posters are coming from in their views. Religious or Political.  Its been hard to take notice and not post warning about it and watch progression on all things....therefore let it roll! I see you have same feeling of "warning" to wrong beliefs.  I heard Jack Colone last night and he addressed how many will be lost because of their own thinking is the right way. Humbleness is following the The Word, The SP. and let it lead you and not you to lead an organization, committee into other directions. How foolish this has all been when we are so close to the end.  Wasn't sure about what that list was for but watching a little closer now and appreciate what you did post on it.

[Gregory]

Tinka, I am so glad to know that you have determined your "sediments."      

Well, we all make mistakes, includidng me. 

 

[tinka]

Tinka, I am so glad to know that you have determined your "sediments."      

Well, we all make mistakes, includidng me. 

Just to make it a little more clear about the "sediments" is what Bob posted that convinces me even more.  I read but not able to be as quick to post like Bob, when I changed computers my White Estate did not load properly and have a hard time with it. Had it when it first came out with great expense and now don't have disks to reload including the Bible part. 

A few names on the list that I noticed where the leadership of a conference is the worst in NAD. Also I want to mention a few more that their leadership has become a little flaky and causes me wonderment of their changes. That's about all I'm going to say without getting downright rank. Like I say the list in interesting. I hate it but know its coming.

I admit that my knowledge is simply my friend (the books) and my Bible that lies on a pillow beside me on my bed for my comfort that I can open on any sleepless moments. I do not follow all the high level committees, or all their voting or offices it does not matter other then I now see what is happening according to the SP. My knowledge is zilch.  I've never tried to seek office or wanted it as my witnessing comes as a doer of work that is on the agenda to help in anyway to support what ever is needed. That's all that was important to me is get the job done and be able to determine what the needs were in the best way, now that is harder for me to do until something changes.

The list is scary knowing what they are voting. But the names of some are not surprising in fact stepped up to their "determines" in black and white fearless of the outcome that has been in progression since way back. Who else will support that list??? I think a lot of members might be like me and really do not know what goes on in top level committees as the foundation under their beliefs slip away.  Same  Ditto for America! that Bob Posted.

[princessdi]

Bob and Tinka, you can feel the way you want,but until you work to change our laws of this country, the order of the day is a separation between church and state, and we know historically that was born out of a merging of church and state over in the European countries that caused all kinds of trouble. It is why the pilgrims came(only to practice their own form of government based on religion for a while), but it was the ideal.  In England they could not worship the way they wanted because the state being ruled by the church.  And then you are going to want them to stop intefering in church when it comes to the Sabbath?  You know you can't have it both ways, right?

You all who are Republicans and Tea Party members talk about big government, and nanny goverment, but right now because of your religilous beliefs you want the government to interfere in the affairs of individual households.  Who is going to place limits on this?  Are you saying that you want them to intefere when it's homosexual relations, but it's none of their business when it is the relations of heterosexuals in their bedrooms.  You can support what you want, but can you at least see where that is a slippery slope?

[Bob Pickle]

Di,

1) Prohibiting homosexual practices and the separation of church and state are two different topics. The First Amendment is what separation of church and state is based upon, and the First Amendment does not prevent the government from prohibiting homosexual practices.

Can you point to any court cases which ruled that an anti-sodomy law was unconstitutional based on the First Amendment's free exercise of establishment clauses? As Gregory pointed out, what the courts have relied on when dealing with these kind of laws is the alleged right to privacy, not the First Amendment.

2) If the courts and society remember their roots, if they remember that Roger Williams (when he got religious and civil liberty started in this country) taught that the government can only enforce the 2nd table of the 10 Commandments as it pertains to outward actions, but is forbidden by God to enforce the 1st table, there won't be any problem whatsoever when it comes to the Sabbath.

The real problem is that too many today don't remember their roots, and thus don't remember why they can't pass and enforce Sunday laws.

Remember that Ellen White multiple times called the U.S. government a "Protestant government." Some Adventists who take the concept of separation of church and state to extremes would be so audacious as to say that Ellen White was wrong when she wrote that. But the fact of the matter is that it is because the U.S. government is a Protestant government that we have liberty of conscience and separation of church and state.

If liberty of conscience and separation of church and state must solely be based on human reasoning and never upon Scripture, then it can be tossed out of the window at some point by society. But if it is also based on Scripture, it can't be tossed out of the window by a Protestant government without constituting apostasy and inviting divine wrath.

3) Roger Williams was neither a Republican nor a Tea party member. Neither was the apostle Paul, Ezekiel, and Matthew, who wrote the Bible texts that A. T. Jones used in his 1889 booklet National Sunday Law when explaining why the government can only enforce the 2nd table, never the 1st table of the 10 Commandments.

4) "Are you saying that you want them to intefere when it's homosexual relations, but it's none of their business when it is the relations of heterosexuals in their bedrooms." The government already interferes. The government prohibits polygamy and incest, even when the adults involved are all consenting. Is that wrong? No, not according to Paul, Ezekiel, and Matthew.

5) The real slippery slope is abandoning and rejecting the historical and biblical basis for freedom of conscience and separation of church and state.