The basic premise is fine but the use of hyperbole is a classic example of communication style used by the left and right which contributes to the great divide.
There was never any expressed intention as regards children to “…indefinitely lock them in cages.” Aside from the fact that many of the photos used were old Obama era photos, the author knows full well that anything cage-like would have only been an immediate short-term facility.
Well at least “Hitler” wasn’t mentioned.
The optics of babies/toddlers being ripped from their mothers’ arms is horrific.
I think all of us can agree that the roll out of this “zero tolerance” policy was ill timed, poorly conceived and not well planned for.
That said, these families/mothers “fleeing the savagery of their mother country “ have only their siblings/cousins/uncles/parents/grandparents to blame for their homeland’s “savagery”.
When any population tolerates criminally corrupt politicians, drug lords, gangsters, human traffickers, and does not vote in tough, strong sheriffs and pristine politicians, they have themselves to blame for the resulting “savagery “.
COSTA RICA, BELIZE, PANAMA all have good governance and their citizens are not camped out on our southern border. They have the same demographic/ethnic mix of Spanish/Aztec/Mayan, as the “failed states” to their north.
So why cannot these failed states emulate them??
Their are a multiplicity of failed states on this planet, including the ones the Supreme Court, this week, rightfully decreed should not be sending their unvetted citizens our way.
My heart bleeds for the multiple millions of “refugees”,and “asylum seekers”, whose abject MISERY knows no bounds
The abject misery of our own American homeless, and inner city slum dwellers is also abhorrent.
Let us take care of our own impoverished before flooding our land with new homeless whose countries are rife with self inflicted “savagery”.
I myself address the problem of “refugees”, by donating extremely generously to the French humanitarian group, Medicines sans Frontières —-Doctors Without Borders, who do stellar, SPLENDID , superb outreach to the disadvantaged on our planet.
I think you’re speaking in terms far too broad when you say that the “Adventist Church” supported legislating the definition of marriage. I am not aware of any statement from the General Conference at any level that recommended political legislation as the solution to this issue. Certainly there have been those at various levels of church life who have supported such measures, but they don’t necessarily speak for the denomination as a whole.
Elder Wilson, in the article he wrote several years ago for the Huffington Post, made it clear that merely because the state permits something, this doesn’t mean the state is endorsing it. In the president’s own words:
“Like many other faiths, the Seventh-day Adventist church subscribes to the Biblical definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, for example. But where we differ from some of our peers is that we acknowledge that there’s a difference between government allowing certain actions with which we might disagree on moral grounds . . . as opposed to compelling them. That is the fine line that is religious liberty.” https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ted-nc-wilson/keeping-church-at-arms-le_b_4226809.html
One other point. While I too honor the memory of Roland Hegstad and mourn his passing, I believe perhaps the most articulate voice in modern Adventism on the issue of government and its need to respect the decisions of conscience relative to consensual morality, was the late Elder John V. Stevens Sr.
I don’t know of any religious liberty advocate in recent decades who understood these issues as clearly as he.
Well stated, Kevin. I very much appreciate your views on church-state issues.
I appreciate the quote you supplied, Kevin, indicating Ted Wilson’s understanding of “the fine line that is religious liberty.” But a large number of Adventists–including duly elected leaders–have opposed gay marriage and supported legislating the definition of marriage. You know many of these individuals personally.
None of us here have a crystal ball that gives us clear insight into the future. One hundred years ago, who would have thought there would be essentially universal laws regarding treatment of prisoners of war, use of biological weapons, and limits to carbon dioxide production? Who would have envisioned global peace-making efforts through an organization like the United Nations? In a parallel line of thinking, who would have thought that so many subordinate leaders would quietly acquiesce to strong-armed leaders like Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump? Whether we like it or not, the pathway toward globalization is inevitable, and as we progress along that path, there is little that can be done by the masses to stop the whims of the few in power. Virtually anything could happen in a crisis–including compulsory worship.
In all honesty, Jeffrey, I think I know of only one highly-placed leader in the church who favors the legislation of gay marriage. I won’t mention his name. But I’m not sure I know of any others who have publicly advocated that particular approach to the issue of homosexual relationships. I’m sure there are some out there, but at the moment I can think of only the one I mentioned earlier.
Issues involving consensual intimacy belong solely between the individual, his or her conscience, and the faith community where such a one holds membership, if any. Sexuality between of-age persons is as much a theological issue for the Christian as is the Trinity, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, or any number of other issues. it lies entirely outside the purview of the non-theocratic state.
I was referring to those who favor legislation against gay marriage. I think we both agree that SDAs should not promote legislated morality apart from the one universal moral: do no harm unto others.
I certainly agree that the state has no place in one’s bedroom.
The line if thinking that compares Trump as Hitler and a globalist explains the Sunday law line of thinking.
I meant to say, legislation against gay marriage. Thanks for clarifying.
Sorry, Kevin Paulson,
I have to strongly disagree !
During proposition eight in California , some years ago, the very RELIGIOUS LIBERTY SECRETARY of the Pacific Union Conference, was actively lobbying/campaigning to LEGISLATE against same sex marriage.
He should have known better!
Same thing in the past few months when all of Australia voted overwhelmingly in favor of same sex marriage, the SDA church in Australia was adamantly wanting to LEGISLATE against the referendum.
I am totally in agreeement with Adventists, if they wish to adhere to their homophobic doctrines. ——-just do NOT work to LEGISLATE these denominational doctrines, imposing them on others —non Adventists ——Jews, Buddhists, Islamists, Atheists and fellow Christians of other persuasions. Then, come Sunday Laws, they will not have a “.leg to stand on”.
By the way, I have many Armenian friends, having lived in Glendale, California, for thirty years —-the most Armenian city on the planet, outside of YEREVAN, capital,of Armenia.
Pat,
I thought I was done dealing with this, but I see you’re trying to post some interesting facts connected with all this; but unfortunately, facts fall on deaf ears. They just don’t matter. It’s all about who, not facts.
Both the left and the right are fed propaganda 24/7. If all you hear is negativity and vilification of the other side of an issue - without a balanced opposition - of course your reality will be different from the other. It really depends on how much brain washing has occurred. It’s no different than religious brain washing with a particular narrative.
I would love someone to list all the Nazi inspired activity being carried out by the current administration. You hear it all the time; and for the life of me, I don’t know what they’re talking about. The best I can figure out is it’s about the “caged” kids and the “showers”. Now, those two accusations were retracted; however, like newspapers, when they publish half-truth, or even a lie on the front page, the retraction may, or may not be found on the back page, next to the obituaries. Clever lawyers do the same thing, they will say something damning against the rules, and apologize for it when the judge disallows it, - but it’s been said, and is in the minds of the jurors - can’t un-ring a bell. In the same way, anything can be said about the opposition, and it will stick forever, as witnesses right here.
So, facts, from both sides, are like statistics - they can say whatever one wants them to say. Once the words have been spoken, there’s no taking them back form a public that hears only what substantiates their own presuppositions. Rare is the person who sets out to be fair, and looks at the issues, not the person talking about them.
So, let’s be clear:
The current immigration laws were not invented by Trump - they have been around for decades. The only thing Trump can be accused of, is operating within the parameters set up by these laws.
Trump did not put those kids into cages. The previous administration did. (I hesitate to use the name since it’s another trigger for the vulnerable, allowing them to discount what’s being said).
The showers at the holding centers are not gas chambers - no connection what’s so ever.
Yes, Trump has money and wants to make more of it. And he wants the country prosper. Who doesn’t? Most working people have pensions - sustentation - stocks - IRA’s - even social security. How do those generate income? Do we want jobs to be available for our college graduates? If his financial success puts some of us off, how about the Kennedy’s - the Clintons (although, they were in dire financial situation after leaving the white house, lamented Hillary). The point being - none of them are hurting. But Trump is the only one who ran with his own money, and the only one not taking a salary.
OK, so I can’t think of any other accusations that could be made other than his moral reprehensiveness. There he’s, again. not alone. If we were able to excuse Clinton, then Trump shouldn’t be too hard take.
I did appreciate your post.
Actually Robin, it was the religious liberty secretary of the Pacific Union that I had in mind, when I spoke of church leaders favoring legislation against same-sex marriage.
He is a friend of mine from many years back, but this is an issue on which we respectfully differ.
I was not fully aware of where the South Pacific Division stood on this issue, but I am sorry that they would take the stance that you say they took. Homosexual behavior is fully condemned in the Bible without qualification. But then, so is Sabbath-breaking and so is idolatry. Yet it would be wrong for us to try to forbid these practices through civil enactments.
These are issues that belong entirely within the purview of evangelism and Biblical persuasion, and entirely outside the purview of non-theocratic civil governments.
Please provide documentation of the source of the photos from the Obama era. Thanks. Besides, as I have to say too often, two wrongs never make a right!
Robin - You, yourself, are an immigrant who refuses to return to your native country because you consider it too dangerous. I’ve heard you talk about that. Why would you not give as you have been given?
I think you need him more…but we happy to take him when you finished with him…
Peter,
I was a LEGAL immigrant.
I went through a very complicated process to get here!
There was a QUOTA of only ONE HUNDRED persons per year allowed
to immigrate from my home country to USA in the year (1961) when I visited the US consulate in my home town, seeking immigration.
In that year, the WAITING LIST was FIFTEEN YEARS LONG!
So many waited YEARS for their prized green card.
(As multiple thousands are still doing in this LEGAL quagmire ).
They did not jump the line.
My own son in law, from Frankfurt Germany, applied for a fiancée visa to come and marry my American- daughter (born in Memphis Tenneseee ).
I had to send multiple highly personal, bank and stock broker records to the US consulate in Germany, to vouch that I would financially support him, and that he would not become a financial liability.to the state.
He married my daughter in a legal ceremony in California and still then WAITED SEVEN MONTHS before they sent him a social security number so that he could seek employment.
Our Mexican illegals get instant jobs the day they arrive, because they are willing to undercut our American workers’ wages.
Until Congress passes E verify, they do not need Social Security numbers!
So that is my family’s story about immigration!
There is no way anyone is going to get the 4 billion non-Christians in the world to go to church on Sunday morning and worship Jesus. Isn’t going to happen, ever.