A Reform-minded Seventh-day Adventist forum In our aim to exalt everything important, first and foremost, we seek to promote a clear understanding of Daniel, Revelation, the three angels' messages and the alpha and omega of apostasy.
Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2003 6:07 pm Post subject: ATTACK ON CHURCHES, Distortion, California Assembly Bill 17
Is there anyone here from California who is interested in Assembly Bill 17 and its alleged attack on Churches?
The Seventh-day Adventist Church State Council has invested heavily in fighting this bill. Alan Reinach is the director of that organization. (His full title is Director of Public Affairs & Religious Liberty, Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists). You might have received his bulk email. His messages are supposed, URGENT alerts, urging Californians to sign a critical online petition to defend religious liberty. The messages struck me as propaganda from a willfully deceived SDA leadership, intentional distortion, and an extremely anti-gospel witness honoring exaggerated claims and logical fallacy.
Would you like to discuss the content of the messages and vote on their integrity?
Here is the SDA church approved message:
Do you value the freedom to believe in God, and to practice your faith? This freedom is under an unusual attack in the California Assembly. Assembly Bill 17 is headed to the Assembly floor for a vote, possibly in early June. Your action in signing our petition is needed now to defeat this assault on our liberties.
AB 17 will require every business, social service provider, religious college, hospital or child care center to provide medical benefits to domestic partners [i.e. same sex couples] as a condition of doing business with the State of California. Think about the enormous impact this will have:
Those who refuse, on religious or conscientious grounds, will have their state funding cut off, including private businesses, and non-profit and religious organizations.
Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Californians will be impacted by the loss of services, when people of faith refuse to compromise.
California will be taxed to the limit to make up for the lost services.
Some religious colleges, hospitals and/or child care centers or other social service programs will be forced to close down, once the state funding is cut off.
Your voice will make a difference, but only if you raise it. Sign our on-line petition now. We will deliver your message to the California legislature. Did you know that as few as twelve letters from constituents can constitute a "flood" of mail, according to a staffer to whom we spoke? You, and your circle of influence, can get the attention of your State Assemblyperson, if you will take the time to sign the petition, and forward this email widely.
We, the undersigned Californians, do hereby petition the California legislature and Governor Gray Davis to OPPOSE AB 17:
AB 17 violates the First Amendment rights of religious individuals and institutions to the free exercise of religion by coercing the violation of sincerely held religious beliefs.
It is bad public policy to deprive thousands, perhaps millions of Californians of access to services, which will inevitably result if this bill is passed, since many state contractors will refuse to compromise their religious scruples, and so be compelled to stop providing those services.
The bill discriminates against not only private contractors, but religious institutions such as colleges and hospitals, by providing exemptions for essential industries and services, but refusing to exempt those with religious objections to providing domestic partner benefits.
The two sites I looked at were a Catholic site that was obviously opposed to the proposal on very similar grounds to those of the letter you posted. The other is Equality California, formerly known as California Alliance for Pride and Equaility (CAPE): http://www.calcape.org/ll_work_ab17.html. Their take is just as obviously the exact opposite of those of the Letter from the Conference and the California Catholic Conference: http://www.cacatholic.org/h/al/al30603-ab17.html. You may review the text of the bill here.
Based upon my limited reading of all this information I would have to agree with the conference on the problems posed by this legislation.
Edited by Moderator _________________ What you tolerate, will happen.
Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2003 3:13 am Post subject: Forcing Christians to do what exactly?
I have to disagree with the author of this proposal. Any business that wishes to DO business must agree to provide equal access and service to not only customers but also employees. As an SDA business owner, I do not feel that the requirement to provide health care, etc. to same sex couples to be a violation of my beliefs. My provision of insurance, benefits, etc. to my staff shows that I care about those who work for me. On what grounds does providing any service to any minority group violate my beliefs as a Christian? And how do those provisions supposedly "endorse" homosexual practices? In my opinion, they don't. I would provide healthcare benefits to employees just as readily as I would ensure that they are earning a competetive wage and such provisions are necessary to ensure the quality of each work environment.
It seems that the churches have become rather homophobic and don't view gays, lesbians, transsexuals, transgenders, etc. as real humans with real hurts and real needs. Christ called for us to be compassionate and go the extra mile even for our worst enemy. With all the medical uncertainty and speculation surrounding homosexuality and its origin/genetic predispositioning, how much more compassionate should we be towards those whom we know very little about?
In Christ,
Michael _________________ Like a quick dark fish, some disturbing half-glimpsed truth had seemed to dart beneath the surface of their conversation, though it eluded her net.--Dean Koontz, ODAFH
Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2003 8:26 am Post subject: Re: Forcing Christians to do what exactly?
japansong wrote:
And how do those provisions supposedly "endorse" homosexual practices?
Being in Tokyo, you might not be aware of that the San Francisco area has the largest homosexual community in the US. Legislation like this is part and parcel of what their political agenda is. Yes, getting this bill passed will be a huge endorsement of practicing gays, not only of their lifestyle, but also a stepping stone to what they'd utimately like which is equal footing in all aspects of political, social, and religious life that equal sexed partners are no different than husband and wife. On that point is where the end of the road is going.
It was once the policy of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to violate the rights of women to equal pay for equal work by denying women the standard “head of household allowance” granted males. From hindsight it is now easy to see how difficult it was for Adventist leaders to conform to the laws of the state and the principles of Christ’s kingdom. They were kicking and fighting all the way. “Not until the Silver-Tobler v. Pacific Press lawsuit in the 70’s did the Church’s employment practices begin to change.” “The SDA Church found out in a long-fought court case that the U.S. laws demanding equal pay for equal work did indeed apply to churches, and Pacific Press was not only required to change its pay scale; it had to restore back wages to its female employees.”
Wasn’t it shameful for the 1970s Religious Liberty office of Seventh-day Adventists to argue, in court, for the right of religiously affiliated entities such as Adventist hospitals, colleges and social service agencies not having to pay women equitably?
I see the current Adventist argument as a pretext. The real dispute is like that in the 70s. The conflict is between tight budgets and the justice of paying equal benefits for equal work. Once again, the Adventists are arguing for the almighty dollar instead of what’s equitable and just.
Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2003 9:15 am Post subject: Homosexual Bill
The honosexual agenda aim is to redefine the meaning of family. Homosexual partners do not meet the requirements of a family and should not be entitled to any special privileges granted to genuine families. Homosexuals do not have the ability of procreating, which is the basic function of a family. Nature is very clear on this. Christians should not be forced to contribute to the breakdown of the basic nucleus of society.
Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2003 9:42 am Post subject: I’m not gay!
Chris, Nic and jrjo,
What is stopping secular businesses and religiously affiliated entities from giving equal benefits to married and unmarried workers? If I do the exact same job as Bob Smith and he gets full medical coverage for two, then why shouldn’t I, as a single person, doing the exact same job, receive the same benefits? Where’s the injustice in me using one of two full medical plans for myself and giving away the second one to a deserving, unemployed friend or family member?
Joined: 13 Apr 2003 Posts: 24 Location: St. Paul, MN USA
Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2003 10:19 am Post subject:
I just loved the value-laden terminology used in the poll! I learned not to do that the first year in sociology classes! Reminds me of the adage used in my neck of the woods: if you haven't been trained, keep your nose out!
Please forgive me for using colorful hyperbole. It didn’t occur to me that my language would be condemned as inappropriate. I am happy to translate. The SDA Public Affairs & Religious Liberty campaign is
Righteous, very Christian and moral.
Exactly what you’d expect from a worldly institution.
Obviously very immoral.
I hope this translation makes it easier for everyone to vote.
PS. I take it from your condemnation of my “value-laden terminology” that you rank my distortion as greater and more offensive than the SDA Public Affairs & Religious Liberty campaign. Is that right?
If a business or an organization wishes to give these benefits to gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples living together without the blessing of marriage they are more than welcome to do so. However, these same businesses or orgainzations should not be required by the state to forgo their own beliefs and be forced to provide benefits to those who in their eyes, based upon their bible based faith, are living in sin. Nor should they be required to recognize situations what the Lord called a confusion, an abomination and sin.
As I said if the church or business or organization wishes to recognize these couples on an equal basis as a married couple that's fine but it is that organization's choice to do it and congratulations on their worldly open mindedness on the matter. By the state requiring these benefits be provided and that if an organization or business fails to do so they are punished, to me this appears to be descrimination based upon one's religion or one's faith.
By requiring that organization to recognize that non-traditional relationship (how's that for politically correct) on an equal basis to marriage contrary to the church's beliefs or be punished by the state, is essentially blackmail. Blackmailing them into changing their fundamental beliefs. Blackmail last time I checked was against the law. Not to mention crossing the line between church and state, the state imposing their beliefs on the church.
Chris _________________ What you tolerate, will happen.
Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2003 9:29 am Post subject: Re: I’m not gay!
Eugene Shubert wrote:
Chris, Nic and jrjo,
What is stopping secular businesses and religiously affiliated entities from giving equal benefits to married and unmarried workers? If I do the exact same job as Bob Smith and he gets full medical coverage for two, then why shouldn’t I, as a single person, doing the exact same job, receive the same benefits? Where’s the injustice in me using one of two full medical plans for myself and giving away the second one to a deserving, unemployed friend or family member?
As long as you introduced the "almighty dollar" term, I'll use it too. Wearing a Human Resource hat for part of my job, I can tell you medical coverage for family members that doesn't cost the employee additional monies is a long gone benefit. Just in the last few years, it has been carved away and will soon be unheard of (except of course if it becomes mandated), so really, saying the almighty buck is the ends here isn't reality. Few and far between are employers that give a free ride to medical coverage extended to additional family members.
Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2003 9:50 am Post subject: Homosexual Bill
Granting homosexuals special benefits weakens the basic society nucleus, which is the family, without which a nation is doomed to extinction. Homosexuals do not contribute to the preservation of humanity. They can't procreate. If everybody were to adopt a homosexual lifestyle, society would cease to exist. We need to pay attention to what is taking place in Europe, where population implosion is beginning to threaten their welfare system.
It is detrimental to the future welfare of our nation to encourage homosexuality. Were is not for the influx of foreing immigrants from Mexico and other countries, the US population would decrease, thus creating an unfair burden on society, because a diminishing working pool would be responsible for the welfare of those retiring from the work force. Why should society reward homosexuals for failing to contribute to the future welfare of our nation?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
