A Conservative Voice?

[Dr. Shane]

Does Liberty Magazine need at least one conservative voice?

Look at this month's artcle's:

Judge Not This is a slam on the Religious Right but lumps in mainstream conservatives that are concerned about judical activism with the fanical fringe.

Humility & Freedom This is a slam on President Bush's public showing of his faith and the religious leaders that support him.

The Other Side This article warns of the danger of nationalism as the author fears Americans are letting their love for their nation take the place of their love for God.

Incorporation Religious Freedom This is a slam on President Bush's promise to appoint originalist judges.

Honoring Liberty A report on Hiliary Clinton's speech at a Liberty Magazine dinner.

Incident at East Waynesville This is a slam on the Baptist pastor in NC that tried to force everyone in his congregation to vote for Bush.

Holy Men This compares Christian leaders in America to Islamic fundamentalists.

It seems there is no conservative voice at Liberty Magazine.

[Taylor]

Question for you Shane...do you have a problem with the Baptist Minister who tried to force everyone in his congregation to vote for Bush? If that is the facts...isn't he using the pulpit to promote something that shouldn't be coming from the pulpit..regardless of what side is "right"? Just curious about your thoughts. BTW I haven't seen our churche's Religious Liberty Magazine in a while so I can't comment on the magazine as per say. But you do raise an interesting point.

[Dr. Shane]

I enjoyed reading "Incident at East Waynesville" as I felt it was a well-thoughtout article. My point isn't that the main focus of articles in Liberty Magazine are wrong, just that they are liberal - all of them. In getting at their main point, they often take shots at conservatives and conservative groups.

The magazine goes out to many law-enforcment officials, judges, probation officers, educaters and politicians. Imagine what some of these with a conservative ideology must think of Liberty Magazine and as a result, the Seventh-day Adventist church.

In this issue you will find one article taking jabs at conservatives because they believe their is judicial activism taking place on the bench, and then in another article they are complaining about conservative judicial activism that has taken place in the past. Well, do they believe judical activism takes place or not? Or is judical activism only bad when it is done by conservatives?

[Dr. Shane]

The article "The Other Side" is a fine example of where I think a conservative could have made the same point in a much better way. While nationalism should be discouraged, patriotism should be encouraged. That should have been the outline for the article.

[Gregory Matthews]

I have not read that issues, as I do not subscribe to LIBERTY. As I have observed it over the years, I have seen it be more conservative in one issue, and more liberal in the next. Also, I have witnessed some changes as the editors change.

In regard to religious organizations, to include churches, asking people to vote for a specific candidate:

All have the freedome to advocate that people vote for a specific candidate. That is not questioned. They simply do not have the freedome to do so, and at the same time recieve the benefits of tax exemption for their organiations and doners.

Let them advocate voting for specific people, and give up tha tax exemption. Dobson has done exactly that in forming a political organization.

[Dr. Shane]

Churches can advocate voting for specific issues (i.e. pro-life) but not specific canidates and still maintain their tax-exempt status.

Dr. Dobson formed a seperate organization from Focus On The Family so he could endorse specific canidates. Focus On The Family can continue to endorse issues but not canidates.

[Jeannieb43]

Unfortunately, Shane, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have become warped.

So-called "Liberals" are these days actually "mainstream."

So-called "Conservatives" have become "Radical rights." (Totally controlled by the pseudoreligious organizations attached to government.)

That's just the way it is.

I see the list of articles in the LIBERTY which you quoted as being thoughtful topics worthy of notice. For instance, Hillary Clinton is NOT an inherently bad person. Neither are her policies inherently bad. For instance, now it is coming to light: The single-payer health insurance system which she and Bill Clinton tried to introduce twelve years ago looks GREAT to us these days, after the way the insurance companies have ruined the medical care payment systems. Bill and Hillary are just too SMART for the common person; too forward-looking and ahead of their time.

That doesn't mean I think Hillary should become president. But neither do I hate her because she's strong (and a little bit unfeminine in her style).

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

So-called "Liberals" are these days actually "mainstream."

So-called "Conservatives" have become "Radical rights." (Totally controlled by the pseudoreligious organizations attached to government.)

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Honestly, from a man educated in the Minnesota, that looks like an opinion from a California liberal.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Hillary Clinton is NOT an inherently bad person.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I agree. If she would moderate her position on abortion, I could support her to become President. A moderate postion on abortion allows it to be legal for the first trimester but tries to discourage it in much the same way the government tries to discourage smoking. There is a group of Democrats that takes such a position and Mrs. Clinton would do herself good to become part of them.

My point about Liberty Magazine is that this magazine is sent to many non-Adventists and represents our church. Do we want conservative judges, probation officers, educators and politicians to view the Adventist church as a politically liberal organization? That is the image the magazine presents to conservatives.

[CyberGuy]

My history professor in academy told me back in 1977 that it would be the republicans who would bring about sunday laws because of their conservative views and it would be the democrats and liberals who would defend separation of church state.

This has held true.

Ellen White has made it plain it is our duty to defend stongly the principles of separation of church and State. By doing so the church stands against the Republicans on many laws they want passed which violates church state principles. The democratic party stands with us on church state separation.

Whenever the state starts to legislate morality there is a danger that Sunday laws will come soon enough.

[Dr. Shane]

It seems Liberty Magazine has the same view as the history professor. The problem that creates is that since the magazine is sent out to judges, probation officers, educators, politicians, law enforcement, members of the media and other community leaders, many recieving it will label it as a liberal publication and its ability of advance and protect religious liberty is hinered. Religious liberty is not, and should never be, a Democrat or Republican issue.

It is an error to think that Republicans want to legislate morality but Democrats do not. Both parties wish to legislate morality. They just differ on which morality they want to legislate. The Democrats, for example, believe it is the responsibility of the wealthy to pay more taxes. Instead of supporting a flat tax (like the Biblical tithe) they support a graduated tax scale so that the more money a person makes, the higher percentage they must pay. Thus they use the tax code to enforce their morality. Another example is environmental laws. Many liberal-leaning environmentalists believe it is wrong to use more than 1.6 gallons of water when one flushes the toilet. So they have passed a law making it illegal to sell a toilet that uses more than 1.6 gallons. (toilets use to use 2 gallons) Another well-known example is gun control. Many well-intentioned liberals seek to enforce their morality on others through gun control laws.

I do not see why anyone would doubt that Sunday laws will be bipartisan. I expect that once the antichrist appears the two parties will unite like they did after the attack of Pearl Harbor and 9/11. I do not believe we can prevent the Sunday laws by only supporting one party.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: " . . .(toilets use to use 2 gallons). . ."

I believe that toilets used to use much more than 2 gallons.

[Dr. Shane]

You may be right. Honestly, the information I have is that toilets sold in Mexico use 2 gallons and they are illegal to buy and bring over here. But they flush so much better

[Dr. Shane]

Stan has asked a very good question of James Standish:

Quote:

---

The church took strong stands on public policy issues over a hundred years ago, including the anti-slavery and temperance movements. Do you plan to take a stand on the issue of torture?

---

I suspect many of us wouldn't mind at all if our church took an official position against torture. I know I would be in favor of such a position being taken. However if our church is precieved as being politically liberal because of Liberty Magazine, any public position we may take against an issue like torture would have less impact with conservatives in Congress and the White House.

[wicklunds]

Are you wanting a politically conservative voice in liberty mag. or a SDA-religiously conservative voice, or both?... I would take issue with a mixing of politics and religion.

Dennis

[aldona]

Which leads us to the question of where religion ends and politics begins...

If a Christian states in public "My religious beliefs lead me to the conclusion that abortion is murder, so I believe abortion should be illegal," is that religion or politics?

If a Christian states in public "My religious beliefs lead me to the conclusion that we should love our enemies and do good unto those that hate us, so I believe our nation is making a mistake in participating in a particular war," is that religion or politics?

As someone who tends towards the left/liberal side of the spectrum, I have observed the following reaction from many of my fellow Christians...

...If I do something like attend a peace rally (for the above reason) or get involved with an organization like Amnesty to try to stop torture or other abuses of human rights, then that's politics, and I am wrong to do so, because we should not mix religion with politics.

...If, on the other hand, someone stands up in the pulpit of our church (yes, this actually happened) and tells us to vote for a particular candidate because he/she is a Christian or because he/she is agains abortion, then this is OK, because that's an act of religion (not politics).

Go figure...

aldona

[Dr. Shane]

I think Liberty Magazine is a mix of religion and politics. When I refer to a "conservative voice" at the magazine I am referig to a political conservative because we, as a church, are trying to reach both liberals and conservatives with our message of religious liberty. If we have only political liberals writing for the magazine, its voice will not be heard well among political conservatives. I would think we would want the magazine to bring the issue of religious liberty accross as a nonpartisan issue.

Quote:

---

"My religious beliefs lead me to the conclusion that abortion is murder, so I believe abortion should be illegal,"

---

The above statement has gotten politics and religion mixed up. There are two issues here. A religious statement would be as follows:

[:"purple"] My religious beliefs lead me to the conclusion that abortion is murder so I believe when a member of the church has an abortion they should be disciplined by the church. [/]

A political statement would be as follows:

[:"purple"] I believe abortion is murder and thus it should be illegal in most circumstances. [/]

A religious statement:

[:"purple"] My religious beliefs lead me to the conclusion that we should love our enemies and do good unto those that hate us so I believe members of our church should only join the military as conscientous objectors. [/]

A political statement:

[:"purple"] I believe our nation is making a mistake in participating in a particular war because we shouldn't respond to our enemies when they attack us. [/]