Americans, know your rights.

[Neil D]

If we want Club Adventist to be known as a safe place, we need to focus on topics and not other members when we are involved in a disagreement.

There is a need to stay on topic and not hijack a thread on issues that just are not relevant to the topic. My purpose was to point that out, and ask some very pointed questions as to relavancy, and as usual, the tactic of club safty is used to skate around the questions.

This is just plain poor form.....

[Neil D]

As far as the ACLU having more influence than our religious liberty department... I doubt that. Liberty Magazine is sent to legislators, judges, law enforcement, probation officers, governors and even the White House itself. In fact, it has been said that if a person has never heard of Liberty Magazine it is probably because they are not a lawyer or have never been elected to a high office. I dare to say our religious liberty department has more influence because not only does it stand for many of the same things as the ACLU, it stands with integrity. As Greggory Matthews demonstrated here, our religious liberty department chooses its battles wisely. We don't defend racists and child molesters just to make a point that doesn't need to be made.

Being known and having clout are two different things, Shane. Sure, respected because we have literature that brings out various arguements on various subjects is a good thing, but it is not clout, aka political influence. The ACLU is on the capital hill every day meeting with various people within the legal communities and influencing politicos on a daily basis. I question whether Liberty lawyers do that since they are selective in thier case loads and since there are so few of them.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Being known and having clout are two different things, Shane.

Again, let's try to refrain from using other members' names when disagreeing with them in in so doing make a small effort to create a friendly online environment at Club Adventist.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Being known and having clout are two different things, Shane.

Again, let's try to refrain from using other members' names when disagreeing with them in in so doing make a small effort to create a friendly online environment at Club Adventist.

Good night, Shane...Lighten up!!!

There was no amonosity in the statement that you quoted. What tone you heard was one of YOUR choosing, not my intent.

Now, if you had quoted from the previous post, I might have agreed with you..Perhaps that colored the post a bit....?

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

When disagreeing with another member, if we avoid using their name or the word "you" that will go a long way in playing well with others and creating a friendlier forum were more people will feel safe to disagree with opinions being expressed.

Shane, to directly address a person by name is not a focus on the individual. It is a style of writing, and often a polite style. No individual member in this forum should think that he/she can dictate the individual writing styles that everyone has to use.

Let me illustrate:

# 1:

Quote:

Jack, again your have demonstrated your total lack of understanding of the subject being discussed, your failure to have any semblance of logic, and your disregard for factual data that was available to you.

Shane, the above is clearly a focus on the individual.

# 2:

Quote:

Jack, the issue being discussed was not whether or not ..., rather it was .... In addition, I will remind you that your claim of .. . . was controverted by .... It would seem to me that the evidence adds up to ... rather than . . . which you suggested.

Shane, the above focuses on what Jack has stated, that is to say, the issue as Jack presented it, and it does not focus on Jack.

Number 1 is clearly out of place, and contributes to an unfriendly forum.

Number 2 is not out of place, and contributes to CA being considered a forum where spiritu discussion takes place on the issues, and where people must be prepared to defend themselves.

[Neil D]

Gregory,

While I agree with the above principles, you have to admit, 2 posts in tandum, with the former upbraiding the individual and the latter going back to the subject, does tend to color ones outlook on the latter post.

I suspect that Shane is a bit sensitive as I do have a point that he is resisting....Oh well....I will drop the issue at this time.....

[lazarus]

I have to say when someone says, Laz, Lazarus when reply to a post it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, and especially when they agree with me. When they disagree it kinda softens the blow!

[Dr. Shane]

Using a person's name personalizes a post. It does not bother me as I have very thick skin. In fact, I understand when those I disagree with turn the focus on me it is because they are losing the argument and would rather focus on me than the topic. So it that sense, it makes me smile a bit. However most people are not like me and addressing them by their name or using the word "you" is a way to quickly turn a thread into a spitting match.

I understand that pride prevents many from changing their ways. To change one's way seems to be admitting their former way was wrong. I use to get personal in posts and after offending a number of people, changed my way. It is simply about being considerate. When I have apologized for offending people in the past and told them it wasn't personal, they responded by asking how it couldn't be personal when I used their name or used the word "you." Truth is, I unknowingly made it personal. So I ate my pride and changed my ways. Now I only use other people's names or the word "you" when I am not disagreeing with them.

Using another member's name or the word "you" is especially grievous when the other person has asked for it not to be done. When people are not disagreeing with me, it is a kind gesture. When they are disagreeing with me it is a means to turn the focus of a thread away from its topic and onto me - which I understand is because the other person is losing the argument and obviously doesn't want to stay topic-focused.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

No individual member in this forum should think that he/she can dictate the individual writing styles that everyone has to use.

We, as a group, decide if our forum is going to be a friendly forum or an emotionally-charged abrasive forum. This is not an "I" or a "me" forum. It is a "we" forum. Each of us contributes to the type of forum we have by the type of posts we, individually, make. We can have a friendly forum where members disagree with each other. Threads where members are disagreeing often get the most hits and many like following the discussion even without participating. Disagreement in and of itself is not a bad thing.

I often stop following threads when they go down the personalized road. I won't name names but I think all of us regulars know different personalities here that often go after each other. The threads start out on topic and are normally interesting. Then a couple pages into them they become a spitting match. I, for one, am casting my vote via my behavior, not to make the forum that way. I have nothing to say about it when George and Bob (not real names) get into a spitting match but when someone starts with me, I will calmly and politely point out the inappropriate behavior - even if it doesn't upset me.

[Gregory Matthews]

You have a good point Neil.

To constantly tell us not to use names is a focus on the style of writing, and an indirect focus on the individual writing. In addition, it is a clear failure to focus on th the issues.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

they are all human, not perfect, and doing the best they can.

OK.... Let's follow that logic. The 35 or 50 year old man that decides to seduce a little seven or eight year old boy into having sex with him is doing the best he can. He should be able to publish a magazine lobbying others to pass legislation that would allow all adult males to have sex with all "willing" boys. And we should be grateful to the ACLU for protecting their right to publish such material and recruit others like them to their cause? After all, "they are all human, not perfect, and doing the best they can."

Now let's consider the abortionist that turns a full-term baby around to deliver him or her breach so that he can cut its spinal cord, collapse its skull and suck out its brains before pulling its head out of the birth canal. I suppose it could be said of these doctors, "they are all human, not perfect, and doing the best they can." Should we also be thankful to the ACLU for fighting for these doctors to continue performing these late-term abortions?

I say no.

Quote:

ACLU is needed, the church is about religious liberty, not secular arguments.

Our existence on this Earth is for the honor and glory of God. Christ said that His kingdom is not of this world, if it were then would His servants fight.

I agree the ACLU serves a purpose as does the NRA, Christian Coalition and Greenpeace but Adventists don't need to be supporting them. Adventists have been called for a special mission. We are like Noah warning of the coming destruction and John the Baptist preparing the way for the Lord. That is where our resources should be placed.

Christ said, "let the dead bury the dead." That is 'the spiritual dead bury the physically dead.' There we find the principle of letting unbelievers take care of the necessary things of this world. We, however, have a higher calling. Let it be beneath us to be defend child molesters and abortionists. The dead bury the dead and let the dead defend the dead too. Let us look to Christ and follow our high calling.

[Neil D]

Quote:

And we should be grateful to the ACLU for protecting their right to publish such material and recruit others like them to their cause?

Shane, ....it is called "Freedom of Speech"...

What is implied with freedom is responsibility for what is said. Your comment is on the morality of what is said. Different subject, and that is why the ACLU was able to defend these guys....for YOUR freedom to continue to rant and rave on the irresponsiblity of some people.....

Quote:

Should we also be thankful to the ACLU for fighting for these doctors to continue performing these late-term abortions?

I am thankful that the ACLU has argued that 3rd parties should NOT be involved in personal decisions of individuals...And I am glad that Dr/Client privilages are not exposed to the world. I am uncomfortable with that exposure. They [ACLU] argue personal/individual responsiblity over their bodies...which allows you to be free from having someone arbratriorly [sp] grab you off the street and examine your naked body for lyme tics and insist on giving you a $150 charge for it and insist that you be glad of it for protecting you from lymes disease.

And any SDA who supports the ACLU, has my thanks....Because they are obviously of wider exposure to the troubles of the world and savey to the ways to beat back predjuice and racism....and other social injustices...

[John317]

...I agree the ACLU serves a purpose as does the NRA, Christian Coalition and Greenpeace but Adventists don't need to be supporting them. Adventists have been called for a special mission. We are like Noah warning of the coming destruction and John the Baptist preparing the way for the Lord. That is where our resources should be placed.

Christ said, "let the dead bury the dead." That is 'the spiritual dead bury the physically dead.' There we find the principle of letting unbelievers take care of the necessary things of this world. We, however, have a higher calling. Let it be beneath us to be defend child molesters and abortionists. The dead bury the dead and let the dead defend the dead too. Let us look to Christ and follow our high calling.

Excellent points, Shane. I completely agree. It's unfortunate when these issues divide SDAs and other Christians who should be united on the subjects that should be uppermost in our minds and to which we should be giving all our time and energy.

[Neil D]

Quote:

We are a part of this world and should try to make it a better place. God did not place us here to build a fence around ourselves. I believe the Jews of Christ day had tried that..look what they missed out on!

To follow up on this, if we are stewards of this earth,[ and we are], while on this earth, we need to make this earth a better place...Yeah, we know it slated for destruction, but stewards are not concerned with what the Master is doing....Only carrying out His charges...and we are charged to be good stewards...That means we need to make this earth a better place than what we had....We leave it in better shape than when we used it. Otherwise, how will the inhabitants of Heaven know that we are good stewards and not out to trash heaven when we get there?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Shane, ...

I am not the topic of this thread.

Quote:

What is implied with freedom is responsibility for what is said.

There are limits to freedom of speech. Do we really need to be allowing child molesters to publish magazines that lobby for legalize child molestation and in so doing recruit more child molesters? Even if a person believe the principle of free speech should be extended to child molesters, should Adventists be diverting their charitable dollars away from the gospel message to help these predators with their most despicable cause?

Quote:

3rd parties should NOT be involved in personal decisions of individuals

This same logic means we do away with laws on child and pet abuse. We can hardly claim that a full-term fetus is any less of a human than a newly born baby or should have less rights that one's dog or cat.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Shane,

I am not the topic here. If another member wants to address me personally they can feel free to send me a private message.

Quote:

Your use of my words in quote were out of context and not related to your statement.

I showed where the logic takes us. If we say that an organization like the ACLU has to take on despicable, as well as noble causes because no one is perfect and these imperfect people are doing the best they can, where does that logic go?

[lazarus]

Larry Craig and the ACLU

http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/09/aclu_backs_craigs_challenge_to.html

[Neil D]

Let's see....how do I address a person on this thread without using their name. I can not say the name of the individual such that I can address the points that were made....All I have to do is use his ...or her name once, and [according to this individual] s/he is the subject of the thread...How rediculous!!!!!!!

Ok, MR. Anonymous, [since you don't want to be named], let me address, Mr. A,[And you do know who your are!] exactly what I have a problem with-

Quote:

There are limits to freedom of speech. Do we really need to be allowing child molesters to publish magazines that lobby for legalize child molestation and in so doing recruit more child molesters? Even if a person believe the principle of free speech should be extended to child molesters, should Adventists be diverting their charitable dollars away from the gospel message to help these predators with their most despicable cause?

There are several points here that need to be address...

Freedom of speech is self limiting...because of the responsibility of the speech...Sure, I might say something that offends you in your home, but if I do so, I loose the responsibility of being a guest in your home...and I have the right to be removed having lost my guest privileges in your home.

Second, publications of legalizing child molestation in the stores are only at seedy places and anyone who wants to find them will, legal or not. Most of those type of publications are not available to the general public and the reason is the same as you demonstrate...moral outrage...Thus main line stores [ie Albersons, Safeway, FredMeyers, Kroger, Vons, ect] will not be selling these publications...However, some 7-11's might be selling them, especially if they are a bad section of town..

Mr. A again brings up the standard of monies to the ACLU vs the Church and that church members should not be supporting the ACLU. While spreading the Gospel is important, the ability to speak that gospel is also important. If there is no freedom of speech, that Gospel might be silence...and definitely more difficult to disseminate. It occurs to me that while the gospel is important, being able to spread that Gospel in a responsible way is also just as important. Mr. A's ranting and raving is dependent upon those same pedifiles whom the ACLU was able to defend for their freedom of speech....

[lazarus]

May I suggest this as a way addressing someone who does not want their name to be used in a post.

To the Poster Formerly Referred to as (insert name)

So Lazarus would be: TPFRL

An example of a post would be:

"TPFRL,

When you said that Jesus would be a member of the ACLU you reveal your inability to understand the naure and scope of the work of the Messiah."

There, problem solved!

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

how do I address a person on this thread without using their name?

Address the topic of discussion and not other members of the forum.

Quote:

If there is no freedom of speech, that Gospel might be silence...

That is why we have our religious liberty departments. The ACLU was founded in 1920. The Seventh-day Adventist Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty was officially organized in 1901 although Adventist leaders had actively lobbied political bodies prior to that. The Adventist church has a longer and more noble history assuring its members they need not look to other organizations with dubious motives and shadowy histories to fight for their rights to speak truth in these final days.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I was questioning who were you than going to support or trust?

This is at the crux of the issue. Each of us has limited resources. Even Bill Gates cannot support every noble cause. The resources we have are given to us as a trust from God. We must give account to Him for how we spend our money and the charities we support with it. My position has been that any money that any Adventist were to give to the ACLU would be better spent if given to another charity. If the Lord has laid the burden of civil liberties on an individual's heart, our own religious liberty departments can be trusted more to defend noble causes than can the ACLU.

[lazarus]

Quote:

The Seventh-day Adventist Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty was officially organized in 1901 although Adventist leaders had actively lobbied political bodies prior to that. The Adventist church has a longer and more noble history assuring its members they need not look to other organizations with dubious motives and shadowy histories to fight for their rights to speak truth in these final days.

What did the Public Affairs and Religious liberty department do for its members in the civil rights era of the 1960's? Did that department speak, or take actions to free its members from segregation? etc.

I honestly don't know, but I can guess at an answer.

The ACLU, will fight for causes that our church is too afraid, apathetic and myopic to be concerned about.

[Dr. Shane]

The religious liberty department focuses on the issue of religious liberty which allows for freedom of speech to spread the gospel, forbids religious persecution and religious discrimination. The Adventist church has a focus of carrying the Three Angels' Message to a dying world in order to warn them of the coming destruction and prepare the way of the Lord. It tries not to get distracted by social practices of various cultures.

If the church campaigning for a noble social cause (whatever it may be [anti-slavery, women's suffrage, anti-abortion, etc]) means the church must divert its focus away spreading the Three Angels' Message, is it worth it? It becomes a matter of focusing on the injustices of this world or the eternal rewards of the next. While these noble causes merit the individual support of Adventist members, the church may well be right to avoid getting bogged down with them.

The problem with the ACLU is that it not only defends noble causes like racial injustices, it also defends despicable causes like racism itself. I cannot justify sending my money to an organization that will use that money to defend child molesters, racists and abortionists while opposing students' right to pray in public school or public schools offering a course on creation as an elective, non-required course. At that point is when I must say, 'let the dead defend the dead.'

[Neil D]

Quote:

The religious liberty department focuses on the issue of religious liberty which allows for freedom of speech to spread the gospel, forbids religious persecution and religious discrimination. The Adventist church has a focus of carrying the Three Angels' Message to a dying world in order to warn them of the coming destruction and prepare the way of the Lord. It tries not to get distracted by social practices of various cultures.

I don't know if you remember Merikay Silverman, but she used to write religious pamphlets for the SDA church during the '70s. The church fired her, when she found out that other writers, principly male, were paid more than she, and she had more experience than they did. All she did was ask for equal pay. She made several attempts to come to agreement with the church, but the church took the stance that they did not have to pay her as much due to thier exempt status as a religious organization. She decided to sue, took the church to court and the church dropped her from the books. The church lost that case....interestingly enough, religious liberty did NOT take up her cause against the church...I wonder why....

Your arguements against the ACLU and for the religious liberty just don't wash, "you who must not be named" [Maybe I need to call you Voldemort?]

[Jeannieb43]

My position has been that any money that any Adventist were to give to the ACLU would be better spent if given to another charity.

Perhaps your position could be better stated as, "I [shane] personally choose not to support the ACLU."

IMHO, each person must choose for himself which charities to support. I do my own research on this matter; and I wouldn't presume to dictate to anybody else where to spend their charitable donations.