RFRA

[Woody]

Yes. I do wonder what Tom would say.

Tom you there?

[fccool]

Here's a related lawsuit of such nature which I find pure ridiculousness:

http://blog.legalzoom.com/legal-news/legal-battle-over-komen-foundations-for-the-cure/

The reason these corporations are suing is because their existence depends solely on people donating to them. If people start donating to "Cupcakes for the cure" or "Adventists for Life"... I mean... all that money would be spent elsewhere.

[doug yowell]

Here's a related lawsuit of such nature which I find pure ridiculousness:

http://blog.legalzoom.com/legal-news/legal-battle-over-komen-foundations-for-the-cure/

The reason these corporations are suing is because their existence depends solely on people donating to them. If people start donating to "Cupcakes for the cure" or "Adventists for Life"... I mean... all that money would be spent elsewhere.

AFL did not ask for donations. It was a prolife mouthpiece,a venue for verbal expression.Cupcakes for the cure of obesity would probably not threaten the financial security of cupcakes for the cure of cancer.

[Pastor_Chick]

Originally Posted By: Pastor_Chick

[Further questions welcome.

How is the apparent inconsistency explained whereby the Creation SDA can be ruled against but the SDA name can be safely adapted by other entities (Kinship,Historic,ect...)?

Doug,

Thanks for the questions.

1) The Creation SDA even tried to appease the GC by altering the name on the church house to "A Creation 7th Day & Adventist Church." We prayed for wisdom on this and received a dream from Heaven giving us this alteration. The GC was not satisfied, and the Court ruled it was "confusingly similar" to "Seventh-day Adventist." There are some other complications in our case. We were expecting a "trial by jury," but suddenly, and without any expectation, the judge granted the GC a "partial summary judgment" which was to say that "Seventh-day Adventist" could not be used by Creation SDA. Sadly, AFTER that ruling, we were ordered to mediation on the remaining issues ("SDA," "Adventist," and a few other minor claims). Since I did not show for mediation (although my attorney was available) based on a couple of reasons, 1) I was in Africa on mission, and 2) I had nothing to mediate, the Court found in favor of the GC on all counts by "default judgment." Fortunately, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case. While the Court was somewhat sympathetic to some of our positions, they did affirm the District Court's prior decisions.

2) SDA Kinship International was made up of GC church members (for the most part). The Court ruled that since they were not claiming to be a "Seventh-day Adventist CHURCH," they had legal justification in using the name for their "religion." In other words, the Court said "Seventh-day Adventist" can refer to the "religion" of ones membership, AND it is also a "source identifier" for the "products and services" of the GC Church. The judge warned that IF they were using the trademark in conjunction with "CHURCH," it could render "a different verdict."

3) The "historic SDA" had their day in court with the Perez case in Miami, FL. I was asked to testify in that case and was there throughout the proceedings. When I discovered that the Perez camp was going to use the CSDA Church as a scapegoat, I declined the invitation to testify. Because of that, the Court allowed me to sit in on the hearing. The judge in that case (a Roman Catholic) stopped the trial at one point, saying this matter should not be adjudicated by "Caesar." He quoted the Bible, and then asked the parties to go into conference, in order to strike an out-of-court settlement. The parties failed to compromise and went back to trial. Perez lost his case and appealed to Atlanta (Court of Appeals). The case was remanded for mediation in Miami. The parties did finally achieve a compromise, but Perez could not use the name to describe his church or his "religious observances and missionary services." Perez remains under the "eye" of the GC adinfinitum. Perez can use a byline saying, "Founded by Seventh-day Adventist believers in 1990" (or something equivalent). All historic SDA groups have decided to follow that format.

The use of the name "Creation Seventh Day Adventist" to describe our faith; our "religious observances and missionary services" is a matter of conscience for us. It is not unlike keeping the Sabbath. If someone ordered us to violate the Sabbath, we would refuse to obey. It is a matter of conscience. It matters not who agrees with us or who disagrees with us--since it is a matter of corporate and individual conscience, we must "obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29) "Conviction" goes beyond "preference." Preference can be yielded or compromised even when it is a strongly held preference. Conviction, on the other hand, must be held sacred unto death.

[Pastor_Chick]

It seems to me it would be too expensive to tackle ALL of them would it not. Lawyers are not cheap.

Woody, thanks for your continued interest in this thread.

It is a great blessing that my personal attorney has taken the case pro bono (i.e., free). He is a Roman Catholic who believes in "religious liberty" for all. He seems to think more like an older Seventh-day Adventist (prior to the era of corporate business policy and image protections).

After we lost the appeals case in Cincinnati, a high-tier law firm in Washington DC contacted us with a proposition. They saw our case having potential for one of the landmark cases in United States history. Because of the "high-profile" nature of the case, they offered to take the case pro bono also.

It is very true that "lawyers are not cheap" unless God hires them. May God be praised!

[Pastor_Chick]

Few things are scarier to me than those that speak out against the organized Seventh-day Adventist church and use the Spirit of Prophecy to support their op-position.

No thanks. I'll take my peace of mind and serenity and you can have your opposition. I would say good luck but my heart just wouldn't be in it.

Shane,

First of all, let us "reason together." (see Isa. 1:18) I was talking with a Jehovah's Witness today, and asked him if he would be willing to sit down and discuss our differences from the Bible. To my great surprise, he agreed.

I think we have some common ground on which to dialogue, since we profess the faith of Seventh-day Adventism.

I appeal to your Biblical understanding in the following way: "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love." (1 John 4:18)

Now, once we have "perfect love," other benefits of God's grace take hold in the heart. "But now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love." (1 Cor. 13:13;NASB)

When you love like Christ loves, you can even say, "...forgive them; for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34)

I was baptized a "Seventh-day Adventist" in 1974. I became a "born again Christian" in 1988 and pursued full-time ministry shortly afterwards under the divine call of YAHWEH.

When I saw what the GC did to Pastor John Marik in Hawaii (1987-89), my soul could not rest. I was not alone in my discomfort, as many other SDA members were of the same mind. When a church uses the strong arm (power) of the state (civil government) to punish heretics, it is no different in spirit from the mind of the Papacy. This is "Adventism 101." "Love does no harm to a neighbor, therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Rom. 13:10;NKJV)

Says the prophet, "The dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." We can see from this scripture that it is not the true church of God that makes war with those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. It is the people who make void the law, who place themselves on the side of the dragon, and persecute those who vindicate God's precepts. (The Signs of the Times, April 22, 1889)

Now, I personally have no axe to grind with anyone. I only obey the Word of God. I hold "true as steel to principle."

We must be as true as steel to principle, standing steadfastly against every species of corruption. It is this steadfast adherence to principle that is to distinguish those who bear the seal of the living God from those who have the mark of the beast. (4MR 76)

Let us remain "true as steel to principle."

[Pastor_Chick]

Here's a related lawsuit of such nature which I find pure ridiculousness:

Cool,

What do you say about this one?

http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/02/04/Adventists_Sue_Uncle_Sam_Over_Trademark.htm

[Woody]

Who is Bassam Ibrahim?

[fccool]

Cool,

What do you say about this one?

http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/02/04/Adventists_Sue_Uncle_Sam_Over_Trademark.htm

It's a really good use of tithe money... To sue organizations that fight for the same cause. I think I'm going to write an extra check next week just for that.

Not

[Stan]

So if a person is not a member of the adventist Church, puts up a sign saying Seventh-day Adventist Church, takes advantage of an organization reputiation and advertising, and collects tithe etc

People should be ok with that?

Turns out there are lots of other names available for a Church.

[Woody]

I think the issue here is that we have number of individual members who feel they know better than the SDA organization. They feel the brethren have given their souls to the Devil and these certain individuals feel they are God's chosen and the TRUE SDA CHURCH.

This is the way that we get offshoots and prophets (false) such as Ernie Knoll.

I don't mean this personal at any offshoots I am just speaking in general (Except for Ernie Knoll). :)

[fccool]

Stan, let me ask you this. If a certain group of people have religious conviction that GC is out of line with Adventism and they wish to separate from GC without loosing their religious identity... explain to me how is forcing them to relinquish their name by means of a COMMERCIAL TRADEMARK LAW is not trampling on their religious freedom.

How do you think it reflects on GC? Baptists don't do that. Catholics don't do that. Lutherans don't do that. And these supposed to be the "Babylon" which will use the government to push the Mark of the Beast and punish Sabbath worship? Seriously?

The message that GC sends is that you can't be called Adventist unless you send your money exclusively to GC. You can't be an Adventist and support your own pastor and maintain your own church. That would be terrible.

[Dr. Shane]

Stan, let me ask you this. If a certain group of people have religious conviction that GC is out of line with Adventism and they wish to separate from GC without loosing their religious identity... explain to me how is forcing them to relinquish their name by means of a COMMERCIAL TRADEMARK LAW is not trampling on their religious freedom.

The Seventh-day Adventist church is a world-wide organization. If someone doesn't like what the GC is doing they should separate. Start their own denomination and choose their own name. The only reason they want to keep the Adventist name is so they can target Adventists in an attempt to get Adventists to leave the organization too.

Like Stan said, there are other names available.

[fccool]

Sure, they do want other dissatisfied Adventists to leave GC churches. What does that have to do with religious freedom of them doing so? If Baptists would come tomorrow and demand that SDA churches stop using their immersion ceremonies as "Baptisms" do you think that would constitute as infringement of Religious Liberty ideals?

You can't have the coexisting ideas that the beast using the government to enforce a certain brand of religion and then turning around and doing exactly same thing!

Here's what GC lawyers send as a S&D notice (emphasis mine):

Your use and modification of the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST mark in this manner is without permission of the GCCSDA and/or the church, and is likely to cause dilution by blurring the distinctive qualities of the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST mark and by tarnishing the reputation of the mark. Your use of the mark in this manner is also likely to cause confusion among consumers who may mistakenly believe that the Church has authorized or approved your use of the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST mark.

Key words are "reputation of the mark", and confusion among "consumers". This is what church is degraded to when it assumes an identity as corporation (for consumers ... i.e. buyers or clients) in order to defend itself. Really demonstrates a lot of confidence and trust in God for preserving the church.

I.E. That's what you've said in one of your recent posts

Quote:

Nic's position is extreme not because he wants the issue to go before the General Conference in open session. His position is extreme because he believes the only justification for abortion is to save the mother's life. Furthermore, he favors not just adding something to the church manual. He favors the woman riding the beast of civil government to enforce her morality. He is all about marrying church and state together to force his personal morality on the world. That is not Adventism. That is Catholicism.

How can you keep both of these ideas together and don't have any problem with the former one at all? Playing favorites?

[Dr. Shane]

There is no problem using the civil government to protect our name. God has provided the civil government to us for exactly such uses. That is not the same as using the civil government to enforce our doctrinal beliefs on others. We call ourselves Adventists. If others don't like what we do, that is fine. But they can't go off their own way and take our name with them.

[Pastor_Chick]

There is no problem using the civil government to protect our name.

Hear the THE PARABLE sent from God in 1991:

There were two women:

One went to her servant and said, "Make for me A DAY which all will respect and call holy."

The other woman summoned her servant and said, "Make for me A NAME that none will defame, and all will regard blessed."

The first woman's servant returned saying, "I have made a HOLY DAY for you; it will be respected and enforced by civil pledge."

The second woman's servant returned saying, "I have made a BLESSED NAME for you, and the governor has pledged to protect it from defamation and unauthorized use forever."

Who are the two woman?

How do we know the two women agree?

It has been written, "I will go with the Word of God" instead of the word of man.

Now, think about what is happening on this thread. Intellectuals, professed believers, and friends are employing the "word of man" (human reasoning, modernism, and even spiritualism) to debate a sacred matter.

Please provide something "inspired" (from the writings) to substantiate the will of God regarding what we are talking about. "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of YAHWEH." (Matt. 4:4)

[fccool]

Quote:

That is not the same as using the civil government to enforce our doctrinal beliefs on others. We call ourselves Adventists. If others don't like what we do, that is fine. But they can't go off their own way and take our name with them.

Hmm, why not? If they believe exactly the same thing, but they also believe that GC is a corrupt institution that should be dismanteled... then name me one good reason why they should give up being called Seventh Day Adventists because of a corrupt institution (as they believe it to be) manipulates the trademark law to force anyone who claims to be SDA out of religious existence.

It's like saying... well, if you disagree with my version of Christianity ... stop calling yourself a Christian. Call yourself "the follower" or something. Christian is "our term", and we'll sue you over it.

Essentially, the name is very important to the followers of SDA faith. GC knows that, and it's not willing to make any differentiating compromise. Essentially it's like arguing over the custody of the children in case of divorce.

[Dr. Shane]

Are you under psychiatric care, Mr. Chick?

God is giving you parables in 1991 and you want to start your own church with our name?

Praise God the He has provided us a civil government which protects intellectual property.

Come up with your own name. Maybe something like "Church of Chick". But don't go with "Church's Chicken". I think that one is taken already.

[Dr. Shane]

Hmm, why not? If they believe exactly the same thing, but they also believe that GC is a corrupt institution that should be dismanteled...

Then they don't believe the same thing! Hello!

The Seventh-day Adventist church is a world-wide organization formed to carry the Three Angels' Message to the end of the Earth. Those that believe the GC is corrupt do not believe the same thing as Adventists do. Adventists believe the GC is the organization God called forth to carry His end-time message.

Maybe these off-shoots could call themselves "Pure As Snow Church". I don't think that one is taken yet. That would be a great contrast to what they believe is a corrupt denomination.

[Dr. Shane]

It's like saying... well, if you disagree with my version of Christianity ... stop calling yourself a Christian. Call yourself "the follower" or something. Christian is "our term", and we'll sue you over it.

Nope. Not the same at all. Christianity is a religion with over 500 denominations. Seventh-day Adventist is a denomination. Big difference. The name belongs to the church. We thought the name up. We trademarked it. It is our intellectual property. If you want to break away and start your own church, come up with your own name.

Now if a group of Adventists want to start a small Bible study group that meets during the week and want to call themselves, Adventist Mid-Week Study, they have the right to do that because they are not breaking away from the church. As individuals they are themselves Adventists. Much like Club Adventist is an internet forum of "Adventists". In those circumstances no one is breaking away from the denomination. Those circumstances are groups of Adventists using the Adventist name.

[Pastor_Chick]

An original disciple (man) says, "Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us."

A contemporary disciple (man) says, "Master, someone is claiming to be of us, using Your name by erecting a sign and advertising that they are following You, and they are taking advantage of Your reputation by casting out demons in Your name, and collecting sacred tithe on top of that."

The Master (God) says, "Do not hinder him [do not initiate a lawsuit], for there is no one who shall perform a miracle in My name [services advertised], and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is for us. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink [products and services] because of your name as followers of Christ [advertised as Adventist believers], truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward [everlasting life].” [brackets supplied]

Man says:

"There are lots of other names available for a Church."

God says:

No name which we can take will be appropriate but that which accords with our profession and expresses our faith and marks us a peculiar people. The name Seventh-day Adventist is a standing rebuke to the Protestant world. Here is the line of distinction between the worshipers of God and those who worship the beast and receive his mark. The great conflict is between the commandments of God and the requirements of the beast. It is because the saints are keeping all ten of the commandments that the dragon makes war upon them. If they will lower the standard and yield the peculiarities of their faith, the dragon will be at peace; but they excite his ire because they have dared to raise the standard and unfurl their banner in opposition to the Protestant world.... (1T 223)

God says:

A company was presented before me under the name of Seventh-day Adventists, who were advising that the banner or sign which makes us a distinctive people should not be held out so strikingly; for they claimed it was not the best policy in securing success to our institutions. This distinctive banner is to be borne through the world to the close of probation. (2SM 385)

For the record, this is General Conference SDA doctrine:

“The beast ‘which had the wound by a sword, and did live,’ is the Papacy. That was a church dominating the civil power, a union of church and state, enforcing its religious dogmas by the civil power, by confiscation, imprisonment, and death. An image to this beast would be another ecclesiastical organization clothed with civil power – another union of church and state – to enforce religion by law.” (Bible Readings For The Home [paper cover], p. 261)

God says:

Let the principle once be established in the United States that the church may employ or control the power of the state; that religious observances may be enforced by secular laws; in short, that the authority of church and state is to dominate the conscience, and the triumph of Rome in this country is assured. (GC 581)

The evidence: http://loudcry.eu/images/SDAtm_pg2.gif

[Light Fox]

Hello,

This is certainly shaping up to be an interesting discussion. I've been browsing it casually for a few days now, though I feel the need to point out something rather critical here regarding a statement by Shane:

The name belongs to the church. We thought the name up. We trademarked it. It is our intellectual property. If you want to break away and start your own church, come up with your own name.

Now, here we have a very sharp difference. You say that you thought the name up, trademarked it, and is therefore your property. If that is the case - that your organization and name is of mere human origin - then I would question why you would be loyal to it. But I digress. Here is what Inspiration says:

"We are Seventh-day Adventists. Are we ashamed of our name? We answer, 'No, no! We are not. It is the name the Lord has given us. It points out the truth that is to be the test of the churches.'" [selected Messages, Book 2, 384]

You claim (as does the General Conference, by the act of acquiring a trademark) that you invented the name. Yet we are told that the Lord invented the name, and gave it to His people.

So what are the options?

1) Mrs. White is incorrect.

2) Mrs. White is correct - God invented the name, and to call it your own invention (and regulate it as such) is to sit in the place of God.

As it stands, it is Christ who names His bride, not a man or group of men. To take "another available name" without Divine instruction shows the very lack of dependence on God's providence that causes others to "do the very thing God has told them not to do," using the civil courts to punish heretics.

As Adventists, we point out the inconsistency of Sunday keeping, and compare it to the offering of Cain. We say, and rightly, that we cannot "do God a favor" by giving Him our best, but not what He asked for. He asks for obedience, He asks for trust. He asks us to keep the Sabbath in spirit and in truth. He does not ask us to rely on the fragile arms of human flesh to protect His interests. Instead, He asks us this:

"Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?" (1 Cor. 6:7)

What will you answer in that day?

[fccool]

Nope. Not the same at all. Christianity is a religion with over 500 denominations. Seventh-day Adventist is a denomination. Big difference. The name belongs to the church. We thought the name up. We trademarked it. It is our intellectual property. If you want to break away and start your own church, come up with your own name.

What if their religious beliefs does not have that as an option? Would you go as far as throwing these people in jail to get that accomplished?

[Dr. Shane]

Their religious beliefs don't allow them to call themselves anything other than Seventh-day Adventists? Is that what you are suggesting?

Why not create a religious belief that says I can pirate Disney movies? When Disney sues me for copyright infringement I can claim protection under religious liberty? I don't think the judge will buy that. I have never seen the words "seventh-day adventist" in the Bible. I am not sure where that religious conviction would come from.

[Dr. Shane]

An original disciple (man) says, "Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us."

The word "Thy" refers to Christ - not Seventh-day Adventist.

"Our" name is Seventh-day Adventist. "His" name is Christ.

Are you ready to admit you are wrong yet or just want to dig your heels in deeper?