Adventist Online

In America schools, teaching children about LGBT's, Transgenders, and etc. has now become the norm. If I have children, HOMESCHOOL!

Views: 872

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

So Bart, you have brought a good point that liberals loves the Pope. Well. as I stated to the post that I've just posted, you may want to start thinking critically of the things that you have just said (BTW Great points) and the relationship with Hitler and Pope Pius XII

I have always wondered why SDA equate the republican party with Sunday law.  It is clear to me that either party or both would put Sunday law into place. Also something to note is that the republican party does not rule the world.  The world is run by left leaning technocrats who take their cue from the Vatican. Liberals would put Sunday law in place to save the planet from evil capitalism and right wing evangelical Christians in an ill attempt to find God's favor.  

Before Jesus was put on the cross no one not even the disciples understood the political world.  They wanted to set Jesus up as king and Rome to be defeated.  It is no different today, people who I admire have little clue that a belief in government saving them is a bad idea. (Psalm 146:3-5)  If you look at all the Patriarchs in the Bible they were very independent of the world but dependent on God.  Lot took the route of living with and being dependent on city dwellers.  What I am saying in short is that the Patriarchs of the Bible were in no way socialists as some SDA would like us to be.

The divide these days politically is not right or left.  It is those who are statists and those who are not.  A “statist” is someone who trusts government more than individuals, and therefore places more and more power into the hands of government.  A nonstatist is the opposite - trusts individuals more than government, and seeks to place more power back into the hands of individuals, and less in government.  A statist loves government, while a nonstatist loves liberty.

Many people warn of the dangers of the left, citing the oppression of Mao and Stalin.  And others warn of the dangers of the right, citing Hitler (although Hitler declared himself to be a socialist, which is not a position of the right, but let’s accept their argument for now).  But Mao, Stalin, and Hitler were all statists.  And therein lay the danger.

Only a statist would vote for a Sunday law.  It would be awarding massive control of individuals to government.  So who are the statists?  In the US, both parties contain statists.  That being said, nearly 100% of one party are made up of statists, and maybe 50% of the other party are made up of statists (although unfortunately, most of that parties leadership are statists).  

It is inconceivable that a Sunday law will come from nonstatists.  So really, the issue isn’t that “liberals” are more of a danger than “conservatives”, since there are both statist liberals and statist conservatives.  It is that the statists will do it.  In the US, one party is a lost cause - it has given itself over completely to statism.  The other party still has a fighting chance - there are still members who fight against statism.  If or when statism takes over both parties completely, then look for a Sunday Law because the political conditions will be right for it.  God won’t let it happen, though, I believe, until both the political conditions and the spiritual conditions are right for it.

Jack,

I would surmise that the party having more diversity among its ranks would be the one which advocate for individual freedoms. One party does however have a sense of some sort of a moral majority and use the government to advocate for its religious views. If a Sunday law emerges, it would in no doubt come from those who perceive themselves and their party as a vanguard of religious conservatism, and not religious freedom.

A statist is willing and happy to have government pass laws that controls other people’s behavior.  Nonstatists are against that.  There are statists among conservatives and nonstatists.  But there is virtually no one in the liberal side arguing for doing away with laws and decreasing government controls on individuals.  “Diversity” has nothing to do with it.  A diverse group of statists is just as happy to pass controlling laws as a uniform group of statists.  One might think that a “diverse” party might advocate for individual freedom, but when was the last time that one saw that, other than with sexual freedom and abortion?  The liberals are only for liberty in that arena, but in terms of religious liberty, property rights, parental rights, purchasing rights, they are nowhere to be seen.  They ALWAYS argue the statist position.  

The religious views that seem to be advocated for by the right are generally about preserving traditional morality.  And most of that is about “leave us alone”.  “Leave us alone” is not a statist position.  It is the opposite.  Oh, there are certainly some religious conservatives who are statists, and would happily have the government pass laws making it mandatory for the populace to observe what they think is moral and right.  But on the religious conservative side at least, there are just as many who recognize that as statist, and do not tolerate it.  But on the other side, the liberal side, there is virtually nobody advocating for religious freedom, for “leave them alone”, for lessening governmental controls on people’s personal lives EXCEPT in the areas if sexual liberty and abortion.

What is preserving traditional morality, except fear of change? People often act upon their fears. The basic premise of law is to control people’s behavior. If there were no government, there would be lawlessness. The question to answer may by, what is the purpose of government. In a republic system, people have their “state” representatives to advocate their concerns. So, from your point, we all are statist.

Some people may believe that the state has no right to infringe on their right to may sound conscious decision (right or wrong) of choosing to have an abortion or not. Whereas others may feel otherwise, and use the state and their religious powers to circumvent such a view.

Why does religious freedom have to be advocated? It’s a given constitutional right. I think “liberal” see it as that.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The moral majority, and those who advocate preserving traditional morality may fear that other religious group and therefore seek to implement laws to preserving traditional morality.

Government is supposed to be our servant, not our master. 

Gene,

if you think that “preservation of traditional morality” is only because of “fear of change”, then I can’t help you.  That is a very negative way to think of it.  Do you preserve Christian morality in your life because of “fear of change” or because of deep commitment?  I hope it’s the latter.  

The usual argument from statists is to try to argue from absolutism.  “If there were no laws, there would be anarchy, and that’s bad”.  Such a simplistic argument.  The Founders were not against government, but they didn’t trust it.  They established checks and balances to prevent government from getting absolute power over the people.  The United States consisted of the people, not the government.  And while there are proper usages if late, there are many misuses.  And we have crossed over into that are a long time ago.

it is absolutely NOT TRUE that “we are all statists”.  Do you trust government more than people?  Then you are a statist.  Many of us are not.  And traditional Seventy Day Adventist’s SURELY were not.  

The problem of abortion is a problem of “how far is government allowed to go?”  Are laws against Murder legitimate laws, or impingement son personal liberty?  The Constitution us very clear on that, that governments exist, in part, to ensure that citizens are secure in their property and their persons.  That governments are established to protect “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.  Does a parent OWN his children?  Is he or she allowed to kill them for any reason that seems good to them?  Are laws that punish murder illegitimate?  I hope your answer is “no”.  

Laws against abortion on demand at any age, or as in the Virginia law, even AFTER the birth, are treading on the murder question, not the enforced religion question.  If you believe that people should be allowed to take the lives of their children, no one can help you.  

‘Your fear of the “Moral Majority” is about 20 years too late.  It doesn’t exist in the conservative side of things, at least it has no power.  The only bodies of political thought proposing laws that impinge on religious liberty are on the left, with desired requirements that people violate their religious liberty in various points, threatening them with fines and even jail time.  Your counterthat laws against abortion are the same thing is silly, because the issue is “what constitutes murder?”  And that is a legitimate discussion.  

Sad propoganda

SO TRUE.  THE IDIOT LADY WHO FOUNDED PLANNED PARENTHOOD WAS A NAZI.  I FORGET THE WITCH'S NAME BUT SHE WAS FROM BACK THEN.  HER AGENDA APPARENTLY WAS FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE IT REALLY EASY FOR BLACKS AND LATINOS TO HAVE ABORTIONS IN THE HOPE OF CONTROLLING THEIR POPULATION. 

The witch name was Margaret Sanger. She was praised by Hillary Clinton, go figure.

She was also friends with Adolf Hitler, they both exchanged awards. The Nazis learned a lot from Margaret Sanger. They also got help from Prescott Bush who did the banking for the Nazis in America, as well as IBM who provided the organization for the concentration camp records, the punch cards and the tatoos of the inmates, brought to them compliments of Thomas Watson of IBM.

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2019   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service