 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
|
|
|
To perform a search, click on ==> Search
XI. SHOUTING FROM THE ROOFTOP
Back in the early nineties, Samojluk’s home church published an open critique of the activities exhibited by pro-lifers in their church bulletin. Samojluk contacted the editor of the church paper asking for equal time to respond on behalf of those who held the opposite point of view. The editor responded that this would not be possible, since the topic was controversial. He appealed to the senior pastor of his church, and was told that his response was too long. He then contacted several other SDA official and independent publications hoping that one of those might allow him to defend the pro-life position on abortion. These efforts failed as well. Two of those independent periodicals invited him to submit an article on the topic. He did. That was over a decade ago. He is still waiting for them to publish it.
Samojluk decided to try another tactic. He wrote an article entitled “Beyond Fundamentals” and submitted it to the Adventist Review. It dealt with a topic that had nothing to do with abortion. The article was accepted for publication, and he received a $50 dollar check in payment for his work. He never saw his literary contribution published. He then sent a donation to his local church designated for the benefit of pro-life activities. It was returned with the following note: “The church does not have a pro-life program.” Samojluk sent a similar donation to the General Conference of SDA’s. It was returned uncashed with a similar explanation.
This frustrating pro-life promotion experience prompted him to start his own Internet web site with an emphasis on news dealing with ethics, morality, religion, origins, and pro-life issues. [1] Since then, he managed to write a large number of articles dealing with religion and ethics. He also succeeded in getting some of his comments on abortion published by some SDA periodicals. Here is a small sample of what he published since then, including an online response by one of the SDA Forum readers. An effort was made to reproduce the documents in this chapter as accurately as possible. This explains the use of the personal pronoun “I” in these articles, which has been avoided elsewhere in this study. To avoid an unsightly appearance due to the presence of the special treatment of quoted material within the quoted documents, no paragraph indentation was attempted.
The Most Dangerous Place on Earth [2]
by Nic Samojluk
On the Brink of Nuclear War. Considering the fact that both Pakistan and India do possess nuclear weapons of mass destruction, and given the unequal confrontation between a giant and a pigmy, as far as both population and number of soldiers each has at its disposal, CNN correspondent Wolf Blitzer, has recently described the disputed territory of Kashmir between India and Pakistan as “The Most Dangerous Place on Earth” at the present moment. This politically precarious situation represents an issue of grave concern for the Bush administration, because in the event of a nuclear exchange between the two countries, the lives of millions of innocent civilians would be in jeopardy, and our own American soldiers operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan would be at great risk. The situation is so serious, that President Bush has decided to send Secretary Rumsfeld as his personal envoy with the difficult mission of trying to diffuse the tension between the two countries.
The Most Dangerous Place on Earth. I grant the fact that Kashmir is an extremely dangerous place on earth right now; nevertheless, I am convinced that the most dangerous place on earth today is not Kashmir, but rather being inside the womb as an unborn. This is the place where a human being runs the greatest risk of being either poisoned or dismembered before he/she has a chance of seeing the light of day for the first time in his/her life.
To read the rest of this article, including My Letter to Adventist Today and the response I received from John McCarty, its Editor; and my email exchange with James Londis, Director of Ethics and Corporate Integrity, Kettering Medical Center Network, in Dayton, Ohio; click on the link listed below: [3]
Who Has the Right to Live? [4]
by Nic Samojluk
Since the dawn of humanity people have debated the question dealing with the right to life. In the Old Testament, murderers, prostitutes, sorcerers, and Sabbath breakers had no right to live. Moses declared that they had to be stoned to death, and some of them suffered such penalty.
Nevertheless, when Jesus was confronted with the dilemma of what to do with the woman caught in adultery, he declared: Whoever is without sin, let him throw the first stone. Well, you know what happened, as the Master knelt down to write on the sand, one by one the woman's accusers left, and then Jesus said to her: Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more.
Throughout history, only a selected group of people had the right to live. They were called free men. Slaves had no such right. A master could kill his slave with impunity, and many did so; but then came Abraham Lincoln, and decided that fighting a civil war was worth the effort to free slaves from this injustice. When the American Civil War was over, slaves suddenly became members of humanity with certain rights, including the right to life.
This right to life is embedded in the Declaration of Independence and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Let us examine what these documents declare regarding the right to life:
| Quote: |
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [5]
|
Now let's take a look at the fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
| Quote: |
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [6]
|
If you read carefully the above-quoted statement, you will realize that in order to be entitled to life, you must have been born within the territory of the United States, or else become a naturalized citizen. On the surface, it seems to imply that the unborn are not entitled to life. Nevertheless, if we say this, then we must also conclude that non-citizens are also deprived of the protection granted to citizens.
Is this the case? Am I free to murder those who have entered illegally into the U.S. territory, or those who have not yet become citizens? I do not think so! The law protects them, even though they were neither born on U.S. soil, nor have they yet become naturalized citizens of the country.
If this is true, then I conclude that those who are waiting to be born should have the same right to life and the protection of U.S. law. Do they? Why not? The answer lies in the erroneous thinking of nine U.S. judges who three decades ago decided to deprive the unborn of their unalienable right to life.
What kind of reasoning did lead them to make such an unwarranted conclusion? The answer is simple: they invented the right to murder the innocent out of the right to privacy. My question is: can my right to privacy include the right to deprive another human being of life? Is my privacy more sacred than the right to life of those who are waiting to be born? Can this right to freedom truncate somebody else's right to life?
The violation of my right to privacy can represent a temporary inconvenience, while the right to life, once taken, cannot be given back. The result of this loss is irreversible. Doesn't common sense dictate that the right to life should have priority over any other rights? Is my thinking on this matter morally unbalanced?
If not, then I conclude that those nine judges who removed the unborn's right to life are guilty of one of the most serious blunders in U.S. history, and it is time to make the proper correction! We need another Abraham Lincoln who is willing to stand for the rights of those who were declared non-persons three decades ago, and thus became easy prey of abortionists whose aim is profit from the genocide of the unborn.
Mind If I Smoke? [7]
by Nic Samojluk
Loma Linda University has been in the forefront in the fight against the smoking habit, which kills approximately 420,000 Americans every year. It is a noble work, which recently received the support of both the government and the general public, and forced even the manufacturers of tobacco products to join in the efforts to warn the public about the deleterious effects of the smoking addiction.
Many scientists have discovered unique methods designed to help those wishing to quit smoking for good, including Linda Hyder Ferry, also known as Dr. Hope, who was able to identify a stimulant antidepressant named buproprion, which possesses the ability of duplicating the effects of nicotine on the brain, thus making quitting the habit less painful. Research has demonstrated that those who stop smoking, have the chance of extending their lives by four or five years on the average, and avoid serious illnesses.
My question is: If it pays to extend the life of a person by four or five years, how about extending the life of a human being by an entire life span? Every year 420,000 dye from smoking-related diseases, but a million and a half human beings are killed by abortion. Stopping an abortion does extend the life of a human being not by four or five years, but rather by a lifetime. Shouldn't society do something about this? We did away with slavery over a century ago. Can't we do away with abortion as well?
To access the "Mind If I Smoke?" story, click on the link listed below: [8]
A Sure Way of Preserving Women’s Abortion Rights [9]
by Nic Samojluk
Following Senator Dianne Feinstein unsuccessful efforts to block the confirmation of Judge Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, I decided to contact the California Senator with a suggestion regarding a sure way Democrats could succeed in preserving women's right to choose in the future. Here is a copy of my E-mail to her.
| Quote: |
Dear Senator Dianne Feinstein,
Considering the Democratic failure to stop the confirmation of Judge Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court, I would like to suggest a sure way of protecting women's right to abortion in the future.
It is a well-known fact that children tend to inherit the values of their parents. This means that the children of Pro-choice women will likely inherit the Pro-choice values of their parents, and they will be the ones who will fight to preserve women's abortion rights in the future. The problem is that we are killing them by the thousands.
We have killed 47 million of those who would have likely defended the right of women to choose. We need to reverse this trend if we want to succeed in protecting women’s rights. Democrats like you need to yield their influence to reduce the number of abortions. Otherwise, the number of Pro-choice individuals will continue to decrease, while the number of Pro-life will keep increasing, since Pro-life women do not abort theirs. This is precisely why the Pro-life movement is gaining strength.
There is more. Surveys have discovered that in France out of three babies born, one of them is born to a Moslem woman. At this trend, Europe will be increasingly populated by Moslems. Decreasing the number of abortions by non-Moslems can reverse this trend. If we want to continue to lead the world, we need to set a wise example to follow by other nations. In the U.S., the birth rate is well below what is needed to maintain a stable demographic level.
Were it not for both the legal and illegal immigration, our U.S. population would slowly implode. We need to reverse this trend, and one way of accomplishing this is by reducing the number of abortions. The security of out country demands that we remedy this situation. We need to better control our borders, reduce the number of illegal immigrants, and increase the birth rate of Americans. Anything you can do encourage the decrease of the number of abortions in our country will help us in achieving these objectives.
|
When Does Human Life Begin? [10]
by Nic Samojluk
What We Seem to Know. We Seventh-day Adventists pride ourselves in having an answer for almost any doctrinal question, because we see ourselves as the prophetical church with the last message for a perishing world. We know the correct day for worship, we know why health is important, we know how to identify the antichrist, we know the exact date when Jesus Christ moved from the Holy Place to the Most Holy in the heavenly sanctuary, and we know what will determine the final destiny of those who claim to be Christ's followers.
What We Prefer to Ignore. We seem to have an answer to all the most important life and death questions ever posed by human beings. Nevertheless, there is one basic question we do not have an answer for, and that is: When does human life begin? This is rather strange, because we used to know the answer for such a question, but it seems like we have decided to forget what the answer was, and this happened shortly after the controversial discussion about human cloning took place a few years ago. Perhaps you are wondering whether I am making this up. Look at the following declaration by a highly respected leader of our church:
| Quote: |
The church has chosen not to define the precise moment human life begins--a moment science finds difficult to pinpoint. [11]
|
What Others Do Know. What surprises me is the fact that members of other religious denominations that do not claim to be the last prophetic movement before Christ's return to this earth do know that human life begins at conception. I am thinking about the Southern Baptists who have such a statement among their fundamental doctrinal beliefs. Even the Pope of Rome, whom we have described in the past as the biblical Antichrist, also knows when human life begins; and not only knows this fundamental biological fact, but he is also adamant in the defense of the unborn.
And I want to add another group of people: the political leaders of South Dakota, who have recently made such a declaration when they voted on a new law making it illegal for women to have an abortion, except in the case when the life of the pregnant woman is at risk and the physician feels saving the lives of both the woman and the baby is impossible. Note the following statement:
| Quote: |
The South Dakota bill declares "that life begins at the time of conception” and "that to fully protect the rights, interests, and health of the pregnant mother, the rights, interest, and life of her unborn child, and the mother's fundamental natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child, abortions in South Dakota should be prohibited." [12]
|
Aren't We God's Remnant? My question is: How can we dare to claim to be the prophetic Remnant people of God on earth, having the last message for a perishing world, if we ignore this fundamental truth: that human life begins at conception? We are right in declaring to the world that God's Holy Time--the Sabbath--is sacred; but is human life not sacred as well? We do know the limits of sacred time, we know exactly when the sacred hours of the Sabbath begin: at sun down, but we claim to ignore when human life begins. How can we justify this ignorance?
The Need to Know the Limits of Human Life. We do declare that human life is precious in the eyes of God, and that human life should be protected, but how can human life be properly protected if we declare to the whole world that we do not know when human life begins? Would it make sense for the president of the U.S. to assert that our borders should be protected, and then add that we do not know the exact location of those borders? Would it make sense for our government to order our border patrol agents to secure our borders, and then admit that we do not know where those borders lie?
We Failed in Nazi Germany. Recently the SDA leaders of both Austria and Germany issued a joint declaration apologizing for the church’s silence and cooperation with Hitler when the genocide of six million Jews was taking place in Germany during the Nazi regime. By declaring that we do not know when human life begins, are we not endorsing the slaughter of the innocent again, this time the genocide of the unborn? Wouldn't it be better to position ourselves definitely within the Pro-life camp, instead of wavering on the sidelines?
Our Deafening Silence on the Abortion Issue. Why are we silent on this life and death issue? When was the last time you heard a sermon on this subject, or read an article in our magazines condemning the slaughter of the innocents? When we hear the deafening silence of our church on the issue of abortion, can't we foresee that we are preparing the way for future SDA leaders for a similar apology sometime in the coming years? Shouldn't we wake up and take a decided stand against this horrendous practice that has since 1973 decimated our population by 45 million victims? Can't we see what is taking place in our own country?
Freedom to the Iraqis and Death to our Own Children. While we are liberating the Iraqis from decades of oppression, we are blind to the fact that our own children are being mercilessly slaughtered in our own backyard. We send our soldiers to protect foreigners from terrorism, but at the same time we do not have the courage to protect our own children from a sure death! We spend billions of dollars to secure the future of foreigners, but fail to secure the future of our own! We try to police the world, while failing to police our own country.
Aren't We a Prophetic Movement? If our church is truly a prophetic movement destined to warn the world about the approaching Day of Judgment, then we can't ignore the fact that God does care for the life of the most innocent members of humanity: the unborn. The one who said, Let the children come to me, will not overlook our actions if we persist in looking the other way while the unborn are being led to the slaughter house. How can those children come to Jesus, if we deprive them of life before they have a chance to take their first breath?
The Death of Abortion [13]
by Nic Samojluk
Abortion carries the seeds of its own demise. It is a well-known fact that children tend to inherit the values of their parents. This means that, if pro-choicers kill their children, while pro-lifers do not, eventually pro-choicers are doomed to extinction.
| Quote: |
Abortion and birth control are antagonistic to Creation. They waste under their own curse as they course toward self-destruction. They leave in their wake the deaths of individuals, the destruction of families, a void in communities, and the downfall of nations. They rip, slash and tear at the moral fabric of a religious people.
Coming events foreshadow themselves as several states introduce legislation to abolish or restrict abortion. Most of this legislation will undoubtedly be gutted with exceptions for rape, incest, or lifestyle of the mother. South Dakota legislators have kept most these exceptions from defiling House Bill 1215 ... [14]
|
This short news item was the most popular of all the items posted on the author's SDA Forum web site. It got 3696 visitors who read it.
A Corporate Apology from the German and Austrian SDA Church [15]
by Nic Samojluk
It is a well-known fact that the late John Paul II did apologize for the past sins of the church, not once, but on numerous occasions. According to one reporter, he did so over a hundred times. Do you think that the current church leaders have a moral obligation to confess the sins of those who preceded them in church office? Evidently the officers of the German and Austrian Seventh-day Adventist church think so, since they decided it was time to do exactly that:
| Quote: |
Noting the sixtieth anniversary of the end of World War II, Seventh-day Adventist church leaders in Germany and Austria have released a declaration saying they “deeply regret” any participation in or support of Nazi activities during the war. The church bodies "honestly confess" a failure "in following our Lord" by not protecting Jews, and others, from that era's genocide, widely known as the Holocaust. Millions of people perished from war atrocities, including more than 6 million Jews who were exterminated in Nazi persecutions during the 12-year period of 1933 to 1945 ...
The church says it also regrets “that in some of our publications . . . there were found articles glorifying Adolf Hitler and agreeing with the ideology of anti-Semitism in a way that is unbelievable from today's [perspective]." . . .
Under various racial decrees, some Adventist congregations expelled members of Jewish heritage. One, Max-Israel Munk, was placed in two concentration camps by the Nazis and survived and returned to his church after the war. He said he did not wish to act toward his congregation in the way in which he had been treated, according to Daniel Heinz, a church archivist at Friedensau Adventist University who has studied Adventist activities during the National Socialist era. . . .
During World War I a portion of the German Adventist church had split off, opposing any military service. This led the National Socialists in 1936 to ban the so-called "Reform Movement" during their time in power. Brugger said concern over a Nazi closure of the main Adventist churches may have weighed on leaders in that era.
"I think during these times the official leaders of our church were afraid of losing the control over the church and losing the church because the political authorities had already . . . [confused] our church with the Reform movement," he explained. "I think our leaders were afraid to lose the official recognition of our church, so therefore maybe they were not [as faithful] to our beliefs as would have been necessary." . . . [16]
|
As I read and re-read this official report by the church, I wondered: Will the SDA church some day issue a similar apology for not actively opposing the genocide that has been taking place since the legalization of abortion in the U.S. back in 1973? We have used tons of ink and paper decrying the desecration of God's Holy Time--the Sabbath. We feel it is a great offense against the God of heaven when we break the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue. Well, how about the other commandment that reads: You shall not murder? If time is sacred, how about human life? Is the death of over 40 million innocent babies less offensive to the Lord than worshipping God on the wrong day of the week?
The current merciless slaughter of innocent children before they are born reminds me of the murder of innocent Jewish boys by King Pharaoh of old and the slaughter of the innocents by King Herod. The church has apologized for keeping silence while six million innocent Jews were exterminated in the Nazi concentration camps. Do you think that the day may come when the future leaders of the General Conference may offer a similar apology for doing nothing while the murder of the children through abortion was taking place in America and the world? If you think I am on the right track, don't you think that it would be much better to do the right thing today?
Odds of dying of Any Cause [17]
by Nic Samojluk
As I was leafing through the August 2006 copy of the National Geographic Magazine I noticed the statistics showing the odds of dying of any cause in the United States. The odds are as follows in descending order:
Heart disease: 1 in 5
Cancer: 1 in 7
Stroke: 1 in 24
Motor vehicle accident: 1 in 84
Suicide: 1 in 119
Falling: 1 in 218
Firearm assault: 1 in 314
Pedestrian accident: 1 in 626
Drowning: 1 in 1,008
Motorcycle accident: 1 in 1,020
Fire or smoke: 1 in 1,113
Bicycling accident: 1 in 4,919
Air/space accident: 1 in 5,051
Accidental firearm discharge: 1 in 5,134
Accidental electrocution: 1 in 9,968
Alcohol poisoning: 1 in 10,048
Hot weather: 1 in 13,729
Hornet wasp, or bee sting: 1 in 56,789
Legal execution: 1 in 62,468
Lightning: 1 in 79,746
Earthquake: 1 in 117,127
Flood: 1 in 144,156
Fireworks discharge: 1 in 340,733
What I noticed also is that the odds of dying as a result of an abortion was missing from the report. This prompted me to send the following comment by E-mail to the magazine:
| Quote: |
While leafing through the latest issue of your magazine I noticed that your statistics showing the odds of dying of any cause in the U.S. is 1 in 5 for heart disease, 1 in 7 for cancer, 1 in 24 for stroke, and so on. How about the odds of dying of abortion? I read elsewhere that it is 1 in 3. If that is correct, then the highest cause of death would be abortion instead of heart disease. Is your omission due to accident or design? Are not the unborn members of the human race? Most abortions are performed when there is a beating heart, brain waves, a torso, hands and feet. Isn't this sufficient evidence that the unborn are in fact human beings? Shouldn’t their deaths [1.5 million per year] be included in the statistics?
|
To Make Man Whole! How About To Keep the Baby Whole? [18]
by Nic Samojluk
"To Make Man Whole". Loma Linda University, owned and operated by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, proudly displays its motto To Make Man Whole in the Loma Linda University Medical Center main lobby and in many of its publications, thus declaring the high ideals of service to humanity, and emphasizing the notion that human health encompasses more than physical health, but rather integrates the physical, psychological, and spiritual aspects of our human personality. Healing the body, while ignoring the other aspects of personality, does not provide a solid foundation for physical, mental, and spiritual health.
For many decades, Loma Linda University has pursued this high ideal of excellence with remarkable success, and it has graduated thousands of highly skilled physician, nurses, and professionals in other medical fields who, following the example of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, have gone to the four corners of the earth carrying with them the lofty ideal of service to a suffering humanity. Its graduates can be found in a large number of countries serving the needs of people with dedication, sacrifice, and Christian love.
How About "To Keep the Baby Whole"? As I pondered the deep meaning of our Loma Linda University motto To Make Man Whole, I wondered: How about to keep the baby whole? It is true that the university has done a lot, and is providing an outstanding service geared toward those who are waiting to be born; nevertheless, I am rather thinking of what the university, and the church that owns this educational and medical facility, could have done for the unborn in light of the high ideal of service implied in its motto.
What Could the University and the Church Have Done for the Unborn? You may wonder what I have in mind! Well, I am thinking of what could have been accomplished on behalf of the unborn, had the university and the SDA Church embraced the pro-life philosophical and humanitarian position instead of the pro-choice one. You might be aware that on an average weekend, approximately three thousand innocent unborn babies are either poisoned or dismembered prior to birth by physicians who have been trained in the arts of healing instead of skill in killing. And this is taking place in some of our SDA hospitals, and even more so inside abortion clinics whose owners’ highest aim is profiting from the deaths of these innocent human creatures.
When Does Human Life Begin? Think about the influence of our Loma Linda University, and the influence of our SDA Church on society. We are known by thousands and millions of people. They are watching and listening to what we are saying. A few years ago, when human cloning and the stem-cell research controversy was in high gear, and Americans were wondering when does human life begin, the SDA Church lost a golden opportunity of siding with the pro-life community by affirming that human life begins at conception. Instead, the SDA Church issued to the world the incredible declaration:
| Quote: |
The church has chosen not to define the precise moment human life begins--a moment science finds difficult to pinpoint. [19]
|
The Far Reaching Implications of Our Pro-Choice Position. The above quoted statement had far-reaching implications, I believe, for the life of untold millions of unborn babies. Notice that while the Roman Pontiff and our Christian Southern Baptists were declaring far and wide that human life begins at conception; we announced to the world that we did not know what the biology books have been publishing for endless decades: that human life begins at conception. The tendency of such a declaration by our church was to strengthen the cause of the pro-abortion community.
Is It True That Our Church is Pro-Choice? Whenever I bring this subject in my conversation with members of our SDA Church, quite often people are surprised to learn that we are in fact on the Pro-Choice side of this controversy. If you are still in doubt, notice what one of our leaders stated recently:
| Quote: |
While I believe with all my heart in freedom, this freedom does not extend to a right to kill an innocent child. To date, my view has not gained the support necessary to commit our church at large to the pro-life cause. James Standish. [20]
|
Our Silence as Additional Evidence of our Moral Support of the Pro-Choice Agenda. If you are still in doubt, I will ask you the following question: When was the last time you heard a sermon, read an article or a book published by our SDA denomination defending the Pro-Life position? A few years ago, I spent a few hours researching in our LLU library in my attempt at locating articles defending the sanctity of human life. I went back about ten years, and I discovered to my amazement that there was almost an absolute silence on the issue, while I had no problem locating hundreds of articles dealing with the Sabbath question.
What is More Sacred, Sacred Time or Human Life? At this point, I have a question for you: What is more sacred in the eyes of God: Our worship on the correct day of the week, or our respect for innocent human life? You might say: The Sabbath is the most sacred of God's Commandments. Is this really so? How come Jesus did not state that? But he did say in Matthew 25 that our eternal destiny would hinge on the way we treat the little ones. He also said:
| Quote: |
Let the children come to me! [21] … I have come that you may have life, and that you may have it more abundantly. [22]
|
I ask: How can the children come to him if we either poison or dismember them before they have a chance to take their first breath? And how can they have an abundant life, if we deprive them of life before they are born? We have been championing the campaign against smoking for many decades now, and thousands of smokers are grateful for what we have done for them. This is very laudable. By doing this we add four or five years to the life of former smokers. If we did the same for the unborn, we would be adding--not simply four or five years to their life--but rather an entire life span.
More Evidence of Our Moral Support for the Pro-Abortion Cause. But there is additional evidence of our moral support for the Pro-Abortion cause. Notice what John V. Stevens Sr., a former Pacific Union Conference of SDA Adventists Public Affairs/Religious Liberty Director, wrote on August 20, 1990:
| Quote: |
Abortion has become the most controversial and volatile issue in America since the Civil War. . . . That brings us squarely to the ultimate issues--freedom to live and freedom to choose. Does either have a priority? For many the answer comes quickly--the freedom to live. Others would select freedom to choose.
The best example is Christ who chose to die in order to restore that freedom lost through sin so that all can choose to mold their own destiny. Christ values choice over life. . . . From the perspective of respect for God's Word, Biblical history, and the fundamental principle of free moral agency, the Adventist church could justify adopting a pro-choice position. It has not.
|
It has not? I'd rather say, "It has indeed." All one has to do is carefully read the “Guidelines on Abortion.” Besides, by affirming that we do not know when human life begins, and by our silence on this issue, I would venture that we have been strengthening the cause of abortion. When I read the above-quoted article, I almost fell off my chair. If we can say that Jesus died to restore our freedom to take the life of innocent human beings, then why can't we say the same about adultery, rape, burglary, and Sabbath breaking? Did Christ really die to restore our freedom to fornicate, to murder, and rape? If not, then how can we say that he died to restore our freedom to poison or dismember the unborn? Doesn't the Bible say that we should not shed innocent blood?
Our Undeniable SDA Blind Spot. There is no doubt in my mind that we, SDAs, have developed a blind moral spot and can't see what is crystal clear in the Bible: That shedding innocent blood is one of the most abhorrent practices condemned throughout the Bible. Last week I noticed some evidence of this fact as I studied the Sabbath School Bible Study Guide (formerly known as the Sabbath Quarterly). In the lesson for Tuesday, February 28, the author, after quoting several Biblical passages describing how some Israelite individuals participated in the pagan ritual of burning their children in honor of God Moloch, he asked the following question:
| Quote: |
Though people today don't burn their children on altars to pagan gods, what are some modern parallels to this same practice?
|
The writer answered his own question by saying that a modern counterpart for the burning of children ritual is the way we abuse our children today. My question is: Isn't abortion a better equivalent for the infanticide practiced in Biblical times than child abuse? After reading this, I thought: Evidently we have developed a blind spot in dealing with the abortion issue. We look at the forest, but we can't see the trees!
Two SDA Books Defending the Right to Kill. Since the abortion controversy started, thirty years ago, I could count only two books published by SDA authors, and both are on the side of women's right to kill the unborn. They are: What Is a Person, by James W. Walters; and Abortion Ethical Issues & Options, Edited by David R. Larson. The second book is a compilation of presentations made by a large group of SDA leaders, most of them defending women's right to choose. I have a debt of gratitude towards both of these SDA scholars for their contribution to SDA thinking, but I cannot agree with the Pro-Choice material those books present. Both books illustrate the undeniable fact that the leadership of the SDA Church has a definitely Pro-choice leaning.
Am I Preaching to the Choir? Sometime ago, I was talking to one of our church members, and he said: "I think that you are preaching to the choir!" Am I? Where is the choir? I ask. If in fact there is a choir supporting my position, then I must say that it is a silent choir that never sings anything. On many occasions people have asked me: Why don't you publish something on the subject? I must confess that I have submitted some of my writings to most of the SDA official and independent publications to no avail.
Some years ago, I submitted a short article to the Adventist Review. I received a message from the assistant editor saying that my submission had been accepted, and there was a check in payment for my contribution. I am still waiting for the magazine to publish what I wrote. At this rate, I will probably be seven feet under by the time they decide to publish it. This is why I started the SDA Forum. If you see any light in my mission, please, join me in my efforts to raise the alarm.
Have We Learned From the German and Austrian Adventists?. Recently the leaders of the German and Austrian SDA Church issued a declaration apologizing for the SDA collaboration and silence during the Nazi program of extermination of six million Jews. Apologizing is good medicine, but isn't it much better to avoid repeating the same mistake here in America while the genocide of the unborn is taking place? This is my humble opinion, but don't rely on it, since I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet!
A Stigmata Case in Loma Linda
by Nic Samojluk
Back in the nineties, the representatives of two leading SDA independent periodicals asked Nic Samojluk to write an article in defense of the pro-life position on abortion. He opted to tell the story of his pilgrimage in search of the “Remnant,” and he chose the allegory literary style for said purpose. The result was what he entitled: “A Stigmata Case in Loma Linda.” [23] Samojluk did submit said literary piece for publication to Adventist Today and Spectrum. That was a long time ago. He has since lost hope that it will ever be published. Nevertheless, this experience convinced him that if he wanted to see it published, he would have to do this himself. This is how the web site SDA Forum [24] was created. Samojluk’s literary creation was published in said forum, and one of those who read it, sent him the following comment from Spain: “After reading your literary piece, I felt that my hands were stained with blood.” As you read this, you can decide whether the work has any literary merit or not:
"How long have you had these stains on your hands?” My devout catholic friend inquired.
I told him I had noticed them at least a decade ago, and I added that their size and coloration had become more conspicuous with the passage of time, especially on my right hand.
"They look to me like a case of stigmata," my friend stated with some assurance. "If I am correct in my assessment, then you might be considered among the most privileged members of Christendom. You might even become a candidate for beatification and even sainthood two or three centuries after you die," he added with some excitement. "I know that your church does not believe in the miracle of stigmata; but, perhaps God is trying to break through to your denomination. You should consult a priest; but first, you might have your doctor analyze these stains to insure they match your own genetic code."
The DNA Blood Test Results. My physician ordered, rather reluctantly, a DNA test and a telephone call from my doctor followed. The first question I asked him was whether the test revealed the presence of human blood. He assured me it did. "But the curious detail," he added, "is that the test reveals the presence of blood from very young individuals. It seems to be either neo-natal or fetal blood. Have you been close, perhaps unawares, to a crime scene?" He asked. This turn of events I did not like a bit; nevertheless, making an effort to hide my apprehension, I managed to ask him whether he had heard of similar cases before, to which he responded:
"Yes, I have. Especially in the last two decades or so. Actually, I detected an increase of reported cases beginning with the 1973 year. Medical science has been perplexed by this rare phenomenon, and the current theory is that the cause is not physiological, but rather psychological. Science seems to be at a loss trying to explain the presence of foreign bloodstains resulting from exclusively altered psychological mental states. What I recommend is that you see an ethicist, a psychologist, or a psychiatrist."
Me a mental case? I always thought to be mentally well balanced. This was beyond my psychological pain threshold. I was ready to hang up, but he added the following:
"There is a renowned ethics expert who recently published a book designed to help those with this rare symptom. You can see him, or you may want to see your pastor; or, if you are really serious, you may want to consult a well-known psychologist who relocated from Pasadena to Colorado Springs a few years ago. He is the best on this subject.”
The Ethical Diagnosis. Since I dreaded the idea of being diagnosed by a psychiatrist or a psychologist, and since I hated the thought of driving all the way to Colorado, especially in winter, I decided to see my friend, the ethicist. He greeted me with his friendly smile, and put me right at ease with the following words of reassurance:
"What you are experiencing should be no cause for worry. This is a quite common situation where symptoms reveal an overactive guilt feeling by association. Your doctor says the DNA test revealed the presence of human blood from a foreign source. We have analyzed this rare phenomenon and we have concluded that it is the blood of non-persons. The Holy Book tells us that humans were created in 'God's image" and our prophet assures us that said image represents the 'power to think and to do.' My conclusion is that fetal blood is the blood of an entity that has not developed to a point where we can assign to it the category of personhood. There should not be any guilt associated with such bloodstains. You are as normal as you can be. If you accept this, these blood stains on your hands will eventually, slowly but surely, disappear with time."
The Verdict of my Pastor. I left the office of my friend greatly relieved, but my problem persisted, so I had no choice but to consult my pastor. His reaction was similar, but slightly different from that of the ethics expert:
"Your concern is a valid one. There is something you can do about this problem. You should exercise your rights as a citizen of a democratic country. These bloodstains are the result of a Supreme Court decision rendered back in 1973. As a pastor, I regret the shedding of innocent blood, but the church should respect the freedom God and the government grants to individuals. Remember that Jesus Christ died to make us free. There is nothing more sacred than human freedom, for which our Redeemer paid a high price: his life.
"If you cast the right votes, you have no reason to feel guilty for the actions of those whose vote is different from yours. The church must stay out of this controversial issue. We have no right to impose our personal values on those who feel otherwise. Many members of our congregation would feel offended if we were to transfer our guilt feelings upon them on this issue. If you can respect the personal preferences of others, your problem will, slowly but surely, disappear with time."
The Psychologist's Opinion. I hoped against hope that his advice would work for me. The fact is it didn't, and I found myself winding the snowy roads leading to Colorado Springs. The sight of the snow-covered mountain peaks was really impressive, and the fresh and pure air, free from the smog-polluted Southern California landscape, was quite invigorating, which gave me a sense that somehow this trip might help me restore the peace of mind I craved so much. Soon I was in the presence of the renowned psychologist.
"This is definitely not a case of stigmata. Your doctor is correct in stating that these ugly bloodstains have a psychological origin. I also concur with your ethicist belief that humans were created in God's image, and that this image is expressed in our 'power to think and to do.’ Nevertheless, this definition of humanness is incomplete. The correct definition includes the 'power to think and to do God's will.' Without that, both Hitler, who exterminated six million innocent Jews, and the Columbine students, who murdered more than a dozen of their classmates, would qualify. They revealed a remarkable 'power to think and to do,' but unfortunately, it was a power to think and to do not God's will, but the will of the Evil One. They had developed the image, not of God, but the image of the one who has been 'a murderer from the beginning.'"
"Likewise, I agree with your pastor regarding our duty and privilege to exercise our voting rights. Nevertheless, the church has a prophetic role, which is to call people to repentance. Suffering and evil tends to increase whenever the voice of the church is silenced. All it takes for evil to increase is for good people to do nothing. This was true in Germany half a century ago, and it is true today. The Good Book condemns the shedding of innocent blood, and there is no more innocent blood than the blood of the unborn. It also cries to God like the blood of Abel whom Cain murdered.
"Your pastor says that Jesus Christ died to make us free, and I agree. He did die 'to make us free,' but again this sentence is incomplete. He did not offer his life in order to make us free to shed innocent blood, but he rather died 'to make us free from sin.' There is a world of difference between these diametrically opposed concepts. I also concur with your pastor that abortion is a controversial issue, but your 'Sabbath' is controversial as well, yet your magazines and books and sermons are filled with arguments in favor of worshipping God on the correct day of the week. Your denomination does not keep silent on this issue just because it is controversial.”
Listening to all this was almost more than I could bear. My guilt feelings had suddenly increased to the breaking point. I felt like running away from his office without even saying good-bye. Nevertheless, I was somehow glued to my chair. I could not move, and I was almost unable to utter a word either. A long silence followed, after which he made the following final remark
"I noticed that your right hand is the one with the ugliest blood stains, and I know why this is so. Evidently, you are right handed. Very likely, your right hand is the one that writes the checks to a pro-choice church, which makes you an accomplice in the shedding of all this innocent blood."
The Results of my Research. On my return to Loma Linda, I went straight to the Heritage section of the Loma Linda University library. I was determined to prove the Colorado Springs psychologist wrong. I searched our church papers for the pro-life articles. The result? A total vacuum, while almost every issue had something about the Sabbath. I said to myself: "Surely, if I peruse the free-press SDA publications like Adventist Today and Spectrum the result will be different." It was the same silence about what I now considered also sacred: human life.
I decided to run one more test. It would be my last chance to prove my psychologist wrong. I sent the Lord's money to my church treasurer labeled as "pro-life/anti-abortion funds." Four days later they were returned with the incredible explanation that neither the local church nor the Conference had such a program in operation. This was the last straw, which means that in the future my tithes and free-will offerings might have to go to Colorado Springs; [25] or perhaps--the Lord forbid--to Rome!
Who Is The Antichrist Today? [26]
by Nic Samojluk
The Bible describes the Antichrist as a persecuting power, killing the innocent children of God. In the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church fulfilled this role through its infamous Inquisition. More recently Communist Russia and China persecuted and killed millions of innocent human beings. Likewise, Hitler annihilated six million innocent Jews? The question is: who plays this role today? Who is persecuting and murdering the innocent children of God?
Aren't Christians being persecuted, maimed, and slaughtered today in many Moslem countries? Aren't we Americans murdering a million and a half unborn children every year? Isn't this the nature of the Beast of Revelation? What do predatory beasts do? Don't they target the weak and unprotected? Why is it so difficult for us to discern what is crystal clear? We have wrecked our brains trying to decipher the number of the Beast of Revelation, forgetting that we can recognize it by what it does, by its nature and character.
The spirit of Antichrist was originally manifested by Cain, the first murderer in history. Since then, this role was played by different individuals and entities. Pharaoh decreed the murder of all Jewish boys. God miraculously intervened to save baby Moses from a sure death. Wicked Haman planned the destruction of the Jews, and God intervened again to protect them from extinction. Herod decreed the merciless slaughter of the children in Bethlehem, but God intervened to protect the life of baby Jesus.
If you want to identify the real Antichrist, you need to look at the attitude of those who are persecuting and murdering the innocent children of God today. Are we speaking out against the slaughter of Christians in Africa and other Moslem dominated countries? Are we in the forefront defending those being murdered before they have a chance to take their first breath in our own country?
The Pope is fearlessly wielding its influence in defense of the unborn, while we are arguing that we do not know when human life begins! Who is partaking of the spirit of the Antichrist today? In Germany, we sided with Hitler while the Jews were being exterminated, and now we remain silent in our press while the unborn are being butchered and poisoned. May the Lord have mercy on us!
We strive to Make Man Whole through our medical institutions, but remain silent while innocent babies are being torn to pieces inside the sacred chamber God provided for their protection. We strive to add four or five years to the life of those who had the privilege of being allowed to be born through our stop-smoking programs, while we neglect to join those struggling to protect the unborn. Saving the unborn would add, not four or five years to the life of human beings, but rather eighty or ninety years. Can we see the difference?
Will There Be Another 9/11? [27]
by Nic Samojluk
I have heard people ask whether there will be another 9/11, the dramatic event that took place back on September 11/01, when the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed following the impact of two airplanes loaded with fuel that had been hijacked by Muslim extremist; a devilish act which dealt a terrible blow to our pride and complacency.
My immediate reaction to the question: "Do you think that there might be another 9/11?" is: "Yes, of course there will be another 9/11.” Who can prevent a 9/11 from taking place every year in September? Unless, those who are in charge of printing Calendars do agree to skip 9/11, and jump from the tenth of September to the twelfth of the same month. Isn't this what many hotels do? They do not have a thirteenth floor in their building! You go from the 12th floor to the 14th one, and nobody complains. This would be the easiest way of avoiding another 9/11.
The more difficult way would be to increase the security of our airports, and to augment the domestic and foreign intelligence. Do we deserve to be free from the repetition of the dramatic events that took the life of 3,000 innocent civilians whose only crime was to show up for work on time on 9/11/01? My answer is: "Yes, aren't we the guardians of democracy and freedom in the world?"
Our enemies do not agree with me. They accuse us of killing innocent women and children in Iraq. My answer is: "We are not targeting Iraqi women and children." Nevertheless, the pro-life activists remind me that we are targeting our own children in the U.S. We have slaughtered 43 million of them since the Supreme Court legalized the killing of the unborn.
Given this scenario, do we deserve to be free from another 9/11 tragic event? I am not so sure. In Iraq, we kill our enemies, with collateral damage to innocent civilians. At home we kill our own. In Iraq we kill those who pose a threat to our security. At home we kill those who pose no threat to us. In Iraq we kill those who sponsor terror. At home we slaughter those who are the most innocent and defenseless being in the universe. Therefore I ask again: What do you think? Will there be another 9/11?
Nathan Christian's Dilemma [28]
by Nic Samojluk
Nathan Christian is not his real name, since he prefers to remain anonymous, and I respect his preference. He is currently faced with a moral dilemma, which he has agreed to share with the readers of this forum with the hope that somebody might help him resolve his mental conflict.
He was born a Catholic. His mother was a devout religious woman until the last day of her life. Not so his dad, who went to church only for special occasions, like weddings and funerals. Nathan became acquainted with the SDA religious beliefs through a neighbor who shared with him some SDA magazines and books. He especially enjoyed reading a book by Ellen White entitled The Desire of Ages and Steps to Christ. He is currently reading The Great Controversy written by the same author.
He is convinced that the correct day for worship is the Seventh Day of the week, as expressed in the Decalogue instead of Sunday. He has managed to attend some of the SDA services on a couple of Sabbaths, but he has been unable to secure all Sabbaths off without risking loosing his job and the nice retirement package that goes with it. He would like to be baptized and thus join the Remnant Church, which keeps God's Commandments and has the Testimony of Jesus, but he has been told that working on Sabbaths makes him ineligible for membership in the SDA organization.
Nathan has talked to the management of the company he works for, but so far has been unable to secure Sabbaths off. His immediate supervisor has suggested that he ask his pastor for a dispensation, since working to support his wife and family is a noble task, and the pastor should be able to accommodate his special needs. Nathan has tried to reason with the SDA minister in charge of preparing him for baptism to no avail.
The hardest part for him to understand is based on the fact that Mary, his daughter, who joined the SDA church a few months ago, was allowed to receive the baptismal ritual in spite of the fact that the SDA pastor was aware that she was pregnant and planning to have an abortion, which took place a couple of weeks after her baptism. Nathan cannot understand why violating the Fourth Commandment is considered by the church as a more serious moral offense than taking the life of his grandchild before birth, which is forbidden by another of the Ten Commandments.
He believes that if his daughter got a dispensation to have the abortion, he should be granted likewise a dispensation to work on Sabbaths. Working to support his family seems to be a noble endeavor, especially considering that he has two of his children in a SDA College, and the other two in a SDA Academy. Loosing his source of income would deprive his children of a religious education, and force him to take a menial job, or perhaps even lose his home to the bank that holds his mortgage.
Nathan can't figure out the logic of the church being so intransigent on the sanctity of Holy Time, while exhibiting laxity when it comes to the Sanctity of Human Life. Do you have any suggestion for my friend?
My Opinion Regarding Nathan Christian’s dilemma [29]
by A.S. David
Ok, this is my opinion, which I already posted in Spanish but probably won't do "Nathan" any good because he wouldn't be able to understand it anyways!
I don't think asking the church for permission (dispensation) would do Nathan any good. If Nathan is convinced that Saturday is the Sabbath and the Lord's Day, the church has no authority to tell Nathan: "Ok Nathan, you can break one of God's commandments and work on the Sabbath". The church doesn't have such authority, if it does; then let's stop criticizing the Catholic Church for taking it on its own to change the Lord's Day from Saturday to Sunday.
The church didn't do Nathan's daughter any favors by allowing her to be baptized knowing that she was going to have an abortion. Missing from the story is the fact that the church didn't take any disciplinary action once she had the abortion. That's dead wrong and the same way the church doesn't have authority to say "you can break the Sabbath", it doesn't have authority to tell someone that is pregnant: "you can abort your child", or "it's a matter of conscience whether you have an abortion or not, it's your child".
I'm growing more and more convinced that the church has replaced the sixth commandment from "Thou shall not kill" to "Thou shall have freedom of conscience and religious freedom"; since it's obvious that something that is completely unbiblical is more important to the church than one of the commandments. I say unbiblical because we won't ever find in the Bible anything having to do with such religious freedom or freedom of conscience, things that as a church we now hold in such a high regard.
That's the reason I joined this forum because it seems to be the only place where SDA Christians preach that all the Ten Commandments need to be kept, not just nine. I think from the bottom of my heart there's not an organization on earth today that preaches and teaches that ALL TEN [of God’s] commandments need to be kept like Revelation 14:12 advises to do on these last days. As individuals, people may have to decide whether to keep all the commandments or do what the church tells them to do.
So, in other words, Nathan, if you're convinced that the Sabbath is the Lord Day; you need to act according to that conviction and don't expect the church to allow you to do anything that has no authority to give you permission to do.
Having said that, if your job is in the medical field and you're working with sick people; that changes everything. Also being a fireman applies as well; but not a business that is there with a purpose and one purpose only: to make money. I hope this is helpful to you and remember God will always provide. God bless you my friend and like the worship song says: "God can find a way where it seems to be no way".
*A.S. David’s position on abortion: Pro-life.
Is Abortion less Offensive to God than Sabbath Breaking [30]
by Nic Samojluk
Millions have perished in our own land for the crime of being unborn. It is estimated that approximately forty-five million unborn babies have been either poisoned or butchered by physicians who were trained to save lives, but who, for profit sake, engage in the business of summarily executing those innocent babies waiting to have the rare chance of taking their first breath.
This is another topic where we, Seventh-day Adventists, have chosen to remain silent while the genocide is taking place. We have plenty of printed space to talk about the importance of worshipping God on the correct day of the week, but we have no interest in raising our voices in condemnation of the slaughter of the innocent in our own land. Every weekend, over three thousand unborn babies are sacrificed for the sake of convenience, and those criminal abortionists do this again and again with impunity.
If we as a nation and as a church continue to remain silent, I believe that the 9/11 event will be followed by other terrible calamities, which will dwarf what happened in New York. God cannot forever remain silent and continue to protect our nation, if we remain silent while those destined to the slaughterhouse go to their death and perish before they have a chance to see the light of day.
This does not surprise me, since historically, we have been more concerned about the sacredness of holy time than human life. The same thing happened when Hitler began his genocidal program against the Jews. We SDAs did turn a blind eye to the plight of the innocent. We were more concerned about making sure Christians were warned about the dangers of worshipping God on the wrong day of the week.
We have championed many good causes. One of them is our concern for the health of those who had the great privilege of being allowed to be born. We have invested our precious resources in our efforts to help those eager to stop smoking, for example. Why? Because, by doing so, we can add about five years to their life. We are blind to see that, by saving the unborn from a sure death, we could add not merely five years to the life of human beings, but an entire life span.
We think that by keeping the Sabbath Day Holy, we are rendering a great service to humanity, forgetting that Jesus stated that the Sabbath was made for the sake of man, and not the other way around. We also forget that the Sabbath is a sign, a mere sign. Signs are important. The sign that reads Emergency in front of a hospital is a big help in guiding ambulances to the place where help is available. Nevertheless, if there is no hospital behind the sign staffed with trained physicians and nurses to render vital help, the sign becomes a dangerous distraction that can cost the life of the dying patient.
This is where we fail. Physicians who have been trained to save lives, devote their entire energy and know how, not to save the lives of those destined to perish; but rather, for the sake of profit, engage in the art of killing, instead of the art of healing; and we, the people who claim to have the last message of hope for a perishing world, prefer to remain silent while the genocide of the unborn continues unabated. I do not know if you are aware that one of the most prosperous abortionists in California, who owns over twenty abortion clinics, is a graduate from Loma Linda University.
Some time ago, I stopped at the White Estate section of the Loma Linda University library, and checked the list of printed material we have been publishing on the subject connected with the Sabbath. We have spent tons of ink in our efforts to convince the rest of Christians about the need to worship God on the correct day of the week. Then I looked for what we were doing in defense of those being poisoned and butchered inside the womb, the modern torture chamber of humanity.
What did I find? Nothing! Zero! This shows very clearly where our interest is. We proclaim that prenatal human life is a magnificent gift of God which should be protected, and then admit that the church has chosen not to define the precise moment human life begins. [31] I can't understand this! How can we expect our physicians to protect prenatal human life if we affirm that we do not know when human life begins!
The Pope, whom we have demonized and labeled as the Beast of Revelation knows when human life begins. And yet we, the Remnant church of God don't. Beasts of prey kill the innocent and defenseless. Isn't this what abortionists are doing? Isn't that the true image of the beast? Doesn't this sound like an anomaly to you? We have labeled the one who is more determined than anybody else in the world to protect the innocent as the Beast. I think that our SDA eyes need to be examined. We have lost our 20/20 vision. How I wish somebody would come to the rescue of those destined to perish.
It is true that in ages past the Catholic Church persecuted, tortured, and killed many Christian, whom Rome labeled as heretics. There is no way of denying what the Catholic Church did through the notorious Inquisition. Nevertheless, should we judge Rome on the basis of what the church did centuries ago, or rather on what the Pope is doing in defense of the defenseless today? Should we ignore what Mother Theresa did for the helpless, and what she did for the unborn?
I don't think we should! Credit should be given where credit is due! Shouldn’t we join John Paul II in his tireless effort to protect those who have no legal defense in this land of freedom: Freedom that is restricted for those lucky to have been allowed to be born?
Right to Life Trumps Right to Freedom of Speech [32]
by Nic Samojluk
Responding to the terrorist attack on British soil, plus the failed terrorist attempt that followed, Prime Minister Tony Blair has decided that the right to life of British citizens trumps the terrorists’ right to free speech. If adopted, the new policy would allow Great Britain to deport anybody who has engaged in inciting hatred and violence on British soil. Common sense dictates that the right to life of British civilians is more sacred that the right to free speech of those who misuse their freedom in order to encourage violence against innocent civilians.
| Quote: |
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced new measures to deport extremists who "incite hatred." The Guardian reports that the list of suggested reasons for deportation include "fostering hatred, advocating violence to further a person's beliefs, or justifying or validating such violence."
Mr. Blair also said that he was prepared to change Britain's Human Rights Act "in respects of interpretation of the European convention on Human Rights" if someone tried to fight the new laws in the courts. [33]
|
If we apply the same common sense reasoning to the abortion issue, we should conclude that the right to life of the unborn should also trump the right to women's freedom of choice. Life should always be more sacred than the right to deprive human beings of life. Those whose business is depriving innocent human beings of life should be either deported or else placed in jail. Abortionists have prostituted their profession, whose mission is to save life instead of profiting from its suppression, and they should be prevented from profiting from crime with impunity.
*Nic Samojluk’s position on abortion: Pro-life.
Chapter Statistical Analysis
A statistical analysis of the writers’ position on abortion listed in this chapter yielded the following results. The chapter includes the contributions of only two individuals, and both of them hold a pro-life position on abortion.
*Note: Following the submission of this dissertation proposal, Nic Samojluk has written much more about the topic of abortion and other related subject. These can be accessed by browsing through the following section of the www.sdaforum.com :
Editorials Index
http://sdaforum.com/page2.html
Endnotes
[1]Nic Samojluk. SDA Forum.Com. Accessed from http://sdaforum.com on 24 Oct. 2006.
[2]Nic Samojluk. “The Most Dangerous Place on Earth” SDA Forum.Com (18 Nov. 2004). Accessed from http://sdaforum.com/page25.html on 24 Oct. 2006.
[3]Ibid.
[4]Nic Samojluk. “Right to Life Vs. Free Speech" SDA Forum.Com (20 Aug. 2005). Accessed from http://sdaforum.com/page45.html on 24 Oct. 2006.
[5]College of Law. U.S. Historical Documents: “Declaration of Independence” (n.d.). Accessed from http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/decind.html on 24 Oct. 2006.
[6]Cornell Law School, “United States Constitution: Amendment XIV” (n.d.). Accessed from http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html on 24 Oct. 2006. If the law protects the lives of immigrants who were not born in the U.S., fairness requires that the lives of the unborn should be protected likewise.
[7]Nic Samojluk. "Mind if I Smoke?” SDA Forum.Com (n.d.). Accessed from http://sdaforum.com/page36.html on 24 Oct. 2006.
[8]Ibid.
[9]Nic Samojluk. “How to Protect Women's Abortion Rights?” SDA Forum.Com (1 Feb. 2006). Accessed from http://sdaforum.com/page57.html on 24 Oct. 2006.
[10]Nic Samojluk. “When does human life begin?” SDA Forum.Com (31 Mar. 2006). Accessed from http://sdaforum.com/page53.html on 24 Oct. 2006.
[11]Bettina Krause. “ANN Feature: Broader Religious Input Needed in Stem Cell Debate, Says Adventist Ethicist” Adventist News network/ Seventh-day Adventist Church (7 Aug. 2001). Accessed from http://news.adventist.org/data/2001/07/0997187695/index.html.en on 24 Oct. 2006.
[12]Nic Samojluk. “In South Dakota life begins at the time of conception” SDA Forum.Com (2 Mar. 2006). Accessed from http://sdaforum.com/page53.html on 24 Oct. 2006.
[13]Dan Holman, “The Death of Abortion” The Covenant News (28 Feb. 2006). Accessed from http://www.covenantnews.com/holman060228.htm on 24 Oct. 2006.
[14]Ibid.
[15]Nic Samojluk. “A Corporate Apology from the German and Austrian SDA Church” SDA Forum.Com (17 Sep. 2005). Accessed from http://sdaforum.com/page47.html on 24 Oct. 2006.
[16]Mark A. Kellner, “German and Austrian Churches Apologize for Holocaust Actions” Adventist Review/Adventist news (2006). Accessed from http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=92 on 24 Oct. 2006.
[17]Nic Samojluk. “Odds of Dying of Any Cause” SDA Forum.Com (Jul 16, 2006). Accessed from http://sdaforum.com/page84.html on 24 Oct. 2006.
[18]Nic Samojluk. “To Make Man Whole! How About To Keep the Baby Whole?” SDA Forum.Com (5 Mar. 2006). Accessed from http://sdaforum.com/page64.html on 24 Oct. 2006.
[19]Bettina Krause, “ANN Feature: Broader Religious Input Needed in Stem Cell Debate, Says Adventist Ethicist” Seventh-day Adventist Church/Adventist News network (7 Aug. 2001). Accessed from http://news.adventist.org/data/2001/07/0997187695/index.html.en on 24 Oct. 2006.
[20]Comment sent by E-mail from the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists to a friend of mine.
[21]Matt. 19:14.
[22]John 10:10.
[23]Nic Samojluk. “A Stigmata Case in Loma Linda?” SDA Forum.Com (20 May 2005). Accessed from http://sdaforum.com/page38.html on 24 Oct. 2006.
[24]SDA Forum.Com. Accessed from www.sdaforum.com on 24 Oct. 2006.
[25]Colorado Springs is where James Dobson’s Focus on the Family pro-life organization is located. Since then, Samojluk has been splitting his tithes and offerings between his local SDA church and pro-life organizations including Focus on the Family. He figured that his SDA church deserves some credit for its defense of the biblical Sabbath and its educational and health work, and pro-life organizations should be credited for defending the rights of those destined to the slaughterhouse. By the way, Samojluk never made the trip to Colorado, and he never sought the help of the professional alluded to in the allegory. The concocted trip and professional care were designed simply to illustrate the deep soul searching he has gone through in connection with the plight of the unborn. Perhaps an anecdote from the old Greek drama period might be of help here. The story is told that a Greek actor playing the part of a lion offered the following comment after appearing on stage: “Children, do not be afraid. I am not a real lion, and you are not in danger. I am simply wearing the face of a lion!”
[26]Nic Samojluk. “Who Is the Antichrist Today?” SDA Forum.Com (28 Nov. 2004). Accessed from http://sdaforum.com/page30.html on 24 Oct. 2006.
[27]Nic Samojluk. “Will There Be Another 9/11?” SDA Forum.Com (15 Apr. 2004). Accessed from http://sdaforum.com/page18.html on 24 Oct. 2006.
[28]A. S. David. “Nathan's Christian dilemma” SDA Forum.Com (6 Jun. 2005). Accessed from http://sdaforum.com/page42.html on 24 Oct. 2006.
[29]Ibid.
[30]Nic Samojluk. “Sabbath Observance Vs. Infanticide” SDA Forum.Com (28 Nov. 2004). Accessed from http://sdaforum.com/page141.html on 24 Oct. 2006.
[31]Bettina Krause, “ANN Feature: Broader Religious Input Needed in Stem Cell Debate, Says Adventist Ethicist” Seventh-day Adventist Church/Adventist News network (7 Aug. 2001). Accessed from http://news.adventist.org/data/2001/07/0997187695/index.html.en on 24 Oct. 2006.
[32]Nic Samojluk. “Right to Life Vs. Free Speech” SDA Forum.Com (6 Aug. 2005). Accessed from http://sdaforum.com/page45.html on 24 Oct. 2006.
[33]Tom Regan, “Blair unveils new security measures for Britain” Christian Science Monitor/csmonitor.com (5 Aug. 2005). Accessed from http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0805/dailyUpdate.html on 10/31/06.
 Free Mailing List Club!
If you would like to be on our SDA Forum Mailing List, please take a minute to sign up today and join hundreds of others who have done already so. It is free, and you will have the choice of unsuscribing at will. We do not share, nor do we sell your E-mail to others.
|
|
| |
|
|
