Home > Opinion > Foster, Stephen > 2012 >
.
Prospective Presidencies - II
.
Submitted: Jan 9, 2012
By Stephen Foster


As we write this, former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) is basking in the afterglow of his near victory in the Iowa Caucuses, pursuant to his party’s presidential nomination.
 
After having staked his campaign on a strong showing in the state, Santorum came within eight votes of winning the Caucuses.
 
He had been flying under the radar, so to speak, since most of the other contenders for the GOP nomination had previously polled better than had the two-term former Senator; but with the campaign implosions — and/or near implosions — of businessman Herman Cain, Texas Governor Rick Perry, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Santorum was literally the next man up.
 
Nevertheless, former Senator Santorum was prepared to take advantage of his opportunity because he had visited all of the state’s 99 counties and had utilized practically all his campaign’s resources and man hours in Iowa.
 
Now the campaign heads to New Hampshire, South Carolina and beyond with Santorum poised to become a factor in the race.
 
Rick Santorum is not an unknown quantity; but if he was, his campaign site headlines and highlights his primary causes. These quotes are excerpted from his website: “His vision for America is to restore America's greatness through the promotion of faith, family and freedom…He believes that at the core of the American experience is the family, and that without strong families, we cannot have a strong and vibrant nation. Senator Santorum believes that at its core, America is a moral enterprise, but that foundation is quickly eroding. As President, Rick Santorum commits to rebuild that foundation and lead the way on restoring traditional American values.”
 
In this blog’s first installment we have cited a number of the former Senator’s stated views on the subject of values and the significant role he sees for government in support or in promotion of what he considers to be “traditional American values;” as relates to faith and family.
 
In the recent New Hampshire Meet the Press debate, after having stated that America is “hopeful of maintaining a more secular state than is in place today” in Pakistan, he paradoxically however complained that the current U.S. President “has a secular ideology that is against our tradition…” with reference to certain behavioral aspects of public/social policy.
 
It should be noted here that former Senator Santorum and former Speaker Gingrich have articulated similar views along these lines. Gingrich is on record as lamenting the secularization of American culture; so much so in fact that, in addition to his previously chronicled plan to have judges — with whom he disagrees on cultural grounds — subpoenaed before Congress to explain their decisions (before possibly having them removed and/or their courts disbanded), he has written books titled, Rediscovering God in America: Reflections on the Role of Faith in Our Nation’s History and Future, in which he argues the founders had intended that there be religious expression in the public square and, To Save America: Stopping Obama’s Secular-Socialist Machine, - enough said.
 
In fact Gingrich Productions along with Citizens United — yes, Citizens United; the same non-profit political organization which was the winning plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court case vs. the Federal Elections Commission (that overturned provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act which had barred corporations and unions from paying for political ads produced independently from the campaigns of candidates) — have actually co-produced two “Rediscovering God in America” films (which are hosted by Newt Gingrich and his current wife, Callista).
 
Rick Santorum is well-known for his passionate stances and pronouncements on traditional values, and for being against abortion under any circumstances. He is also widely known for being staunchly opposed to gay marriage. Santorum is personally anti-contraception as well. These positions are of course, largely if not entirely, resulting from his deeply held religious convictions as a devout Roman Catholic. Santorum now concludes that John F. Kennedy’s approach to reconciling his Catholicism with his duties as President — that of separating them into two separate and distinct spheres — was harmful to America.
 
Coincidentally, partially resulting from hearing his wife Callista sing in the Basilica in Washington, DC., Speaker Gingrich credits his 2010 conversion to Catholicism for his having found God.
 
 With my position — as a historical Seventh-day Adventist — concerning the potential dangers of governmental activism in church-state affairs being well-documented (in this blog space), there is perhaps no need to restate it at this particular point in time. What may need to be restated however is the fact that we have no idea by whom or when eschatological events will be catalyzed; but we remain convinced of why and how.
 
Suffice it to say that, based on experience, it appears reasonably safe to anticipate responses to this perspective along the lines of how unlikely it is that the dangers we perceive are real (if for no other reason than) because public opinion is so far removed from the scenario about which historical Adventists are so apprehensive.
 
In other words, some may suggest that with current public opinion (in certain areas of the country) in favor of things such as gay marriage, and with religious or moral influence to the contrary in apparent decline, how can the dangers that Adventism has historically warned against be imminent at all — if indeed real at all.
 
Those who think that the will of a vocal minority (or perhaps even a vocal majority) cannot be politically overcome and/or thwarted need look no further than the passage of both the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.
 
No matter how seemingly unpopular, all that any controversial legislation would require for passage is a committed and determined President of the United States, the support of a filibuster proof majority of U.S. (60) Senators, and 218 (of 435) votes in the House of Representatives, including some who are even willing to risk certain defeat in the next election, in order to pass what they perceive as historically important legislation.
 
Ironically, only an unelected Supreme Court, willing to defy the will of both the duly elected representatives of the people (in the legislature) and the duly elected President of the United States, can stand in the way of the subsequent implementation of such (seemingly) unpopular legislation — on the grounds that it considers it to be unconstitutional.
 



William Noel
2012-01-10 11:03 AM

Why is it your passion for politics eclipses any apparent passion for the Gospel and ministries that bring people into the Kingdom of God?

Stephen Foster
2012-01-10 4:27 PM

Ah, William…alas, we understand. You have previously categorized those with whom you ideologically disagree as “enemies of God,” so we are very sensitive indeed to just how strongly you feel about your personal ideological persuasion.
 
Apparently however, you have not noticed a few things about our blogs: 1) we are admittedly and unapologetically focused on the religious liberty implications of American political movements in accordance with the historic SDA eschatological exegeses of the prophecies of Daniel and The Revelation of Jesus Christ; particularly Revelation 13; 2) we attempt to no longer label or categorize or even identify the ideological leanings of the individuals on whom we report in this (eschatological) context; 3) we have been blogging on this site since 2009 on a variety of topics. One particular blog that goes a long toward explaining our differences is “Adventists in America: The Real Divide – The Real Solution.”
 
Before you render (final) judgment on us, you may be advised to read what we have had to say on topics that may not offend your ideological sensibilities.
 
I was recently amused by one of the illustrative aspects of this divide—on a completely different subject. This site’s newest blogger, Charles Eaton—a college student—recently commented that he had never previously met a Seventh-day Adventist who didn’t believe the Genesis narrative of creation to be true.
 
This amused me because, prior to participating on this site, I too had never met a Seventh-day Adventist who didn’t believe that the Genesis narrative is true; and I graduated from college 35 years ago!

William Noel
2012-01-12 9:11 AM

Stephen,
It is paradoxic how you could say your emphasis is on the defense of religious liberty when you so vigorously defend liberal-socialist political philosophy that was founded in the concept that God does not exist and with the #1 objective of Christianity so it has no role in society.  Then you cry alarm when someone from the other side of the political spectrum who hopes to be president makes a statement about the role of faith in their own life or defending the role of religion in society. 

Stephen Foster
2012-01-12 12:20 PM

May I suggest to you the notion that things such as progressive taxation (wherein those who earn more, pay higher percentages of income tax), or universal health care access, or governmental regulation of workplace and product safety—or of environmental (air and water) safety, or the concept of consumer advocacy, or the emphasizing or favoring of the “demand” side of the economy, or the advocacy for equal rights for all racial and gender demographics, or any number of other things, have nothing to do with religious liberty or Adventist eschatological exegeses.
 
On the other hand, when American political leaders/aspirants decry secularism (in America) while advocating for an increasing role of institutions of faith in public policies and affairs, it dovetails with Biblical prophecy to many Adventists.
 
Now if you are of the opinion that the historic Adventist teaching of the prophecies of Revelation 13 are not important or in error, then you may not see this as in any way ominous. It is ultimately a matter of perspective.

Kevin Riley
2012-01-12 7:44 PM

William

You obviously know little of Christian socialism, or of most social-democratic parties that actually have a Christian origin.  Methodism and Catholicism contributed more to the kind of 'socialism' you see in the US or other Western countries (outside Russia) than Marxist thought has.  Even Marxist thought owes quite a bit to Christianity and Judaism.

Elaine Nelson
2012-01-10 4:48 PM

People who lead very narrow lives, associating only with those of like beliefs, should not be surprised to find that, lo and behold!  there's another world out there of which they had only read about.

Adventist isolationists reveal more than they might wish.  When such narrow experiences are the sum total of one's life for an entire third, it is no wonder that much of writings by SDAs is so juvenile and lacking in life experiences.  Move out from the enclosed, safe
area of Adventism and discover a whole new world out there, filled with loving, much more tolerant individuals than will usually be found within the average SDA community.

Stephen Foster
2012-01-10 5:55 PM

Elaine!
 
Welcome back! Where have you been? You have certainly been missed (by me)!
 
Perhaps you’ve been gone for so long and missed me so much that you just couldn’t wait to reconnect in commentary.
 
You seem somewhat rusty, I must say. My statement about not having previously met a Seventh-day Adventist who did not believe the Genesis narrative of creation was a comment on my exposure to…uhm Seventh-day Adventists.
 
You may be interested to know that I did not attend church school until the 10th grade; having previously attended public schools in the state of New York. (I was introduced to the theory of evolution as early at an early age.)
 
I have spent my entire career in large (“worldly”) corporations and, as such, have many friends and acquaintances who had never heard of Adventism prior to meeting me. Hey, but welcome back anyway, my friend!

Elaine Nelson
2012-01-12 9:10 PM

I have also missed the almost-daily comments here.  I have been ill for several weeks and am still on the mend--nothing serious, but very debilitating.  A great method for learning patience:  the physical overrides the mental in such cases.

Rusty?  Perhaps I misunderstood that your comment was relating to largely SDAs.   Even so, it cannot be concluded that all SDAs accept the 6-day literality of  Creation.  IMO, if one accepts that God created this world  and all in it, the exact way man described Creation (God did not write the Creation story), there should be no problem unless some wish to make it so.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Kevin Riley
2012-01-10 6:14 PM

The SDA church continues to be very ambivalent on secularisation.  We want religion out of politics completely, but somehow dominant in the lives of citizens.  We are vigilant against any erosion of our religious views in the public square, claiming that freedom of religion protects our right to believe and practice our religion both publicly and privately.  Yet we are happy to impose our views based solidly on religious beliefs on others in the name of morality.  And yet we see it as a threat to religious freedom if others want to do the same thing.  Perhaps we are not as solidly committed to religious freedom when it does not serve our agenda as we are when it does.

Horace Butler
2012-01-10 8:31 PM

I must belong to a different SDA Church than the one you're describing.  In what way does our church attempt to "impose our views . . . on others in the name of morality?" 

It should be noted that, with the exception of Mitt Romney, who was not present at the big "revival meeting" in Iowa (right before Thanksgiving), not one candidate disagreed with Michelle Bachmans lament about the separation of church and state.  These guys are opposed to the principle.  That should disturb even the "progressives" among us.

Along with Bros. Foster and Eaton, I too had never encountered an Adventist who didn't believe in the veracity of the Genesis narrative--until I started perusing this site and another more infamous one--and I graduated from college almost 40 years ago (as a biology major).

Kevin Riley
2012-01-10 9:00 PM

The church's opposition to gay marriages comes to mind.  We clearly oppose it for religious reasons - how else can we characterise a belief based on what we believe the Bible says - yet argue that we can support Christian morals without infringing on anyone's freedom of religion.  Gay marriage may not be a good thing - even some gay activists oppose it - but how is imposing a Bible-based belief on those who do not accept the Bible, or interpret it differently, not a religious freedom issue?  Yes, most US christians have historically held that homosexuality is wrong for biblical reasons, but most have also held that people should attend church on Sunday for equally Biblical reasons.  We just happen to agree with them on the first and not the second.

I first met SDAs who questioned the idea of 6,000 years since creation as a teenager in the 1970s, and met the first SDA who supported creation by evolution at least 2 decades ago.  I suspect the more conservative in general SDAism is in your area, the less likelihood of meeting someone who questions the literalness of Genesis 1-11.

Stephen Foster
2012-01-11 6:25 AM

Kevin,
 
To my knowledge, the Adventist church has taken, or has sought to take, a libertarian stance on personal civil liberties.
 
Speaking for myself, I think that the church should take a stand on what it considers to be the definition of marriage; but that it should remain neutral insofar as how the state defines marriage.
 
(As for Adventists believing the Genesis creation narrative, it is a relative cultural phenomenon in my view. The black Adventist community in the U.S. is universally theologically conservative; the handful of exceptions proving the rule. Theologically liberal black Adventists would be considered extremely conservative elsewhere. It is all relative.)

Ron Corson
2012-01-10 9:02 PM

Stephen wrote:
"What may need to be restated however is the fact that we have no idea by whom or when eschatological events will be catalyzed; but we remain convinced of why and how."

He does not know the who or when but knows the why and how...and he thinks that makes sense so he can condemn whomever he wants as the article does (basically the who being Political Conservatives). But he does not know the who or when just the why and how. What a confused and foolish view that such prophetic prognostication has created. Amazing!

Stephen Foster
2012-01-10 11:35 PM

So, Ron, I suppose if we had said that we actually do know by whom and when eschatological events will be catalyzed, that would have been somehow acceptable.
 
Tell me, should we know by whom or should we know when; or both?

Ron Corson
2012-01-11 12:18 AM

No you would have been arrogantly wrong if you did say you do know. But I do see with your conspiratorial type of thinking you would jump to such an irrational statement as: "So, Ron, I suppose if we had said that we actually do know by whom and when eschatological events will be catalyzed, that would have been somehow acceptable." I mean how twisted a logic is that?

Should we know...of course not the Apocalyptic books were never intended to give anyone that kind of certainity, otherwise they would have been meaningless to hundreds or thousands of years of Christians. You do constantly amaze me, it must be comforting to have such a restricted view that your historic Adventism gives you. I mean why else ignore the great portion of history and the complete inaccuracy of your historic interpretations. But it stills seems to me that comfort due to ignorance is not something to be treasured.

Stephen Foster
2012-01-11 6:34 AM

Perhaps we can be of a little assistance at this juncture (then, perhaps not). The prophecies of Revelation, for example, are provided—by God—for a particular reason.
 
Revelation 22: 6-8, 16-19 gives us a clue as to their importance, but according to EGW “The most fearful threatening ever addressed to mortals is contained in the third angel’s message. That must be a terrible sin which calls down the wrath of God unmingled with mercy. Men are not to be left in darkness concerning this important matter; the warning against this sin is to be given to the world before the visitation of God’s judgments, that all may know why they are to be inflicted, and have opportunity to escape them. Prophecy declares that the first angel would make his announcement to ‘every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.’ The warning of the third angel, which forms a part of the same threefold message, is to be no less widespread. It is represented in the prophecy as being proclaimed with a loud voice, by an angel flying in the midst of heaven; and it will command the attention of the world.”
 
Accordingly it would seem to make some sense to want to know what the mark of the beast is and how to best avoid it. For the most part, SDA’s believe that we have a unique insight and purpose in relation to the eschatological prophecies of the Bible; particularly Daniel and the Revelation.
 
If you do not believe this to be the case (which, needless to say, is your prerogative) then none of this is likely to make any sense (at all) to you; and neither should it.
 
However, the reportage of the policy positions and policy statements of prospective U.S. Presidents that may have religious and/or religious liberty implications is relevant to those who do believe that America has a prophetic eschatological role to play. It is, in the final analysis, simply a matter of perspective.

Trevor Hammond
2012-01-12 11:03 AM

Adventism can be accused of many things which may be used to cast a shadow of doubt on it, but one thing is certain to me: Adventists in general are a caring and warmhearted people (like many others out there too I suppose).  Our Church's interest in the history and remarkable happenings in the US of A is based on our historic position regarding end time events as foretold in the Prophecies of the Bible especially Daniel and the Revelation.  The (spitting) 'image' of a certain religio-political power will be (is being) set up and will eventually cause the world to wander after it through certain means thereby establishing an alternative to the seventh day Sabbath - ie. Sunday Sacredness/Law. 

This blog (and others) gives us a taste of what some aspiring presidential hopefuls may include in their effort to get the job done and how their various religious persuasions may very well make a ‘mark’ in the White House (or maybe not).  Such information though is of interest to those who believe in the unfolding of end time events and doesn’t raise false alarms and distract us from our mission because this ‘is’ a part of our mission which heralds the Third Angel's Message among others. 

The US of A isn’t just famous for being the biggest CO2 polluter (second to China of course) but THE only major Superpower currently on our planet which in spite of some economic setbacks is still the Real McCoy on the globe.  So when people with strong religious persuasions get into bed with a Secular State something always happens whether for better or for worse.  That we will see…

Ella M
2012-01-27 11:14 PM

    I still see here a tendancy to drift into one political party or the other.  By this time the presidential hopeful felt as a threat in the original blog, is probably on his way out.  He may or may not have been a good president, but the concern existed about some of his ideas.  Newt has also been "born again." Being a Catholic isn't his biggest problem. As for Romney, I have had evangelical friends not want to vote for him because of being a Mormon. How Mormonism would influence his decision-making, I have no idea, but he has the right answers. Ron Paul stands strongest on separation of church and state and the  issues that infringe on it (like gay marriage--marriage is a religious issue that government should not be involved in nor make an amendment against). 
     The Democratic president is not pure when it comes to church and state.  He is ready to force some religious institutions to give up their beliefs or go out of business.  Under him Christian harassment has increased in the media.  Though I admire egalitarianism, there is the possibility that churches could be forced to hire people not of their faith and lifestyle.  There is an uncomfortable atmosphere of government intrusion under this president that could open the way for regulation of religion.  The new health care system  impinges on religious freedom as well and the many religious hospitals and institutions that would be impacted by it.  We need only to look at Europe where religion and church attendance has declined significantly under a more socialist system.  Thus, we might live in an era where, rather than persecute with heat, the government choice would be to freeze religion out of the nation.
   The choices are not absolute and cannot be determined by political party.
   When will we learn that to become associated with a political party is treasonous to our faith?  The devil will use both of them!  
   

Kevin Riley
2012-01-28 6:34 PM

"marriage is a religious issue that government should not be involved in nor make an amendment against".  Historically, marriage is a civil issue that religion only slowly became involved in.  Whether we argue for or against an idea, it is a good practice to argue against/for from a truthful perspective.  If we really wanted separation of church and state we would be removing religion from the marriage equation.  The fact that marriage is licensed by the state shows it is a civil institution, and the move to amend the definition of marriage is no more, nor less, religious than the original definition and its subsequent amendment was.  If you were happy to have marriage mentioned at all, and for it to be amended to 'one man and one woman', how can you object to the government making another amendment?

Horace Butler
2012-01-28 6:50 AM

"When will we learn that to become associated with a political party is treasonous to our faith?  The devil will use both of them!"

AMEN!

Joe Erwin
2012-01-28 8:41 AM

Before the US of A existed as an independent nation, immigrants--many fleeing religious persecution--came here to establish settlements where they would be free to practice the religion of their choice. I have traced my ancestry, and of the ones I have found back in the 1600s and early 1700s, were religious and sought religious freedom for themselves and those of their branch of religious faith. Some sought more freedom of thought, both for themselves and others. The "Puritans," it seems were exceptionally intolerant. I have ancestors who were among the accusers and accused in the Salem witch trials. Some of my ancestors were whipped or expelled from Massachusetts for meeting and discussing baptism by immersion (and established Rhode Island). One anglican ancestor was the first protestant governor of Maryland, and declared  religious freedom. His reward? Armed rebelion and imprisonment by Puritans. Others were Quakers. Some were Lutherans. A number were Dutch Reformed, some of them the earliest settlers in New York (1623). The RI contingent started the American Baptist movement. Later some were Methodist missionaries to west coast natives. Along the way, many were politically active, in that they helped to establish governmental institutions necessary to peace and order. The ones who insisted on liberty of conscience and speech and emphasized the value of education and productive work were also those who pressed for government to be secular. Problems arise when any religious group presses for undue governmental influence. In the US all the pressure in that direction is from evangelical Christians, some of whom are protestants and some of whom are Catholics. And strangely, we now have a situation where the two favorites of evangelical protestants are Catholic!

 

Ella M
2012-01-29 4:42 PM

     One of my ancestors was drowned by Zwinglians in Switzerland due to his belief in baptism by immersion.  It is because of of the Mormonism of Romney that many evangelicals are favoring Newt.  They will deny this, but it is obvious.  I have heard it from people I know; they have a more favorable view of Catholicism now that they didn't have in the past.  They also relate to Newt's lambasting of anti-Christian rhetoric in the media and being cast as uneducated and ignorant.  Since I dispise stereotyping, I can relate to this as well.  This whole political thing could go either way, and I don't think either one of them would be good.

Stephen Foster
2012-02-02 4:27 AM

Thank you all. These are very interesting and informative comments, observations and perspectives; as are the times in which we live.

JaNe
2012-02-03 2:58 PM

In your one-sided view, you left out the other side of the equation....You forgot the unions, which will play some sort of role, who happen to be financial supporters of obama.

Could it be that the unions, with the occupy movement worldwide, will continue to push their agenda and bring about total financial collapse? It is LEGITIMATE to raise this question.

Also, it is offensive that obama claims Jesus would support his efforts to tax the rich more (they already pay most of the taxes). obama is asking us to violate the 10th Commandment by appealing to us peons coveting what the "rich" have. It also diverts from his record of high unemployment, massive debt exceeding GDP, loss of our triple A rating, housing market in shambles, inflation on the rise & gas prices double what they were on innauguration day. Lets not forget also backstabbing our allies in Eastern Europe, Israel & Taiwan. Or giving $900,000,000 to Hamas in the "stimulus" package.

Also, lets not get to cozy with the modern enviromental movement. It turns God's creation on its head by placing plant & animal life equal or above human life. And I REJECT this notion from you leftists that anyone who disagrees with you on regulations is against the environment. We don't need every regulation because someone who claims to be "green" says so.

And who is it, politicaly, who consintantly expands the size of the federal government so someone someday could implement the mark of the beast? I belive that would be your side. Apparently you are an obamanista and want to use this platform into scaring SDA's into voting for obama. But what if one can't, in good concious, support obamacare, class warfare, all the "czars" created, liberal judges, blocking of the Canada pipeline, the mandating of churches to cover abortion, abortion itself, gay marriage, cutting of our military in a post 9-11 environment, the corruption with solyndra and the several other solyndra type company loans to obama donors who then go bankrupt, the using of NASA for "muslim outreach", giving of $900,000,000 to Hamas, government takeovers of private industry such as GM, Chrysler & Citibank, spending of BILLIONS on unecessary road construction which through union dues goes back into obama campaign coffers (its called money laundering), the expansion of the welfare state,or any politician who refuses to condemn the violent occupy movement?............

Let us vote for who we want and stop using the Church's name on a site pushing a political agenda. What if someone stumbled across this and thought all Adventists are left wing socialists? They might not listen to the Church on other things.

Stephen Foster
2012-02-03 7:10 PM

Welcome JaNe,
 
Would you kindly give us an example in this blog of what you refer to as left wing socialism?
 
Is there anything in your reading and understanding of the Bible that has caused you to believe that any particular temporal political economic system is good or evil?
 
Finally, do you subscribe to historical SDA doctrinal exegeses and eschatology regarding the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation; particularly Revelation 13?

Although I am not on the editorial staff here and cannot/do not speak for them. I can only say that it is not owned or operated by the SDA Church. As for opinions expressed on this site by bloggers/columnists, it is to the staff’s significant credit that this site allows and encourages a diversity of opinions and perspectives on a variety of topics.
 
If someone were to happen upon a blog here, authored by a subscriber to evolutionary theory regarding Homo sapiens and life on this planet, they wouldn’t necessarily think that all Adventists are therefore evolutionists. Why should they then think that all Adventists were either politically liberal or conservative depending on their perception of this blogger’s perspective?

JaNe
2012-02-06 3:43 AM

"n which he argues the founders had intended that there be religious expression in the public square and, To Save America: Stopping Obama’s Secular-Socialist Machine, - enough said."
The "-enough said" seems to indicate you have a problem with refering to obama's euro-style socialism as such-most likely because you support it, or so it would appear. 

Of course I'm historical SDA on eschatology...not sure why one would ask? I think i made that pretty clear in my opposition to the expansion of the size & role of the federal government.

As for the sites "credit", uhmmm...they use the name "Adventist" to do it-kind of gives an impression we are all politically to the left-we are not all to the left....But that makes the bigger point-WHY politics of this nature on a site with the churches name? Some of you people on the left in the church hate refering to the little horn as papal Rome (which it is, and mentioniong it once in an explanation of it isn't "bashing" Catholics) yet many of you seem to relish claiming the G.O.P. is about to usher in the mark-of-the-beast each election cycle. When it happens-it will be co-operation by both sides...

Actually, most people who know nothing about Adventism, if they were to stumble across this site, WOULD think the Church supports the myths of Darwin. All it takes is one to give an impression-a first impression at that.   To suggest otherwise would be...well......:) Lets get back to the root of Adventism

Stephen Foster
2012-02-06 7:55 AM

JaNe,
 
Who are you responding to in the first paragraph of your above post?
 
Have you attempted to address my first two questions to you? If so, could you please re-state your answers; because if you have, I honestly have missed them?

Anonymous


You do not have sufficient permissions to post a comment.


Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register

Adventist Today Magazine is published quarterly by Adventist Today Foundation

Phone: 503-826-8600   |   Email: atoday@atoday.org   |   Web: atoday.org