Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,211
Members1,325
|
Most Online5,850 Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
9 registered members (TheophilusOne, dedication, daylily, Daryl, Karen Y, 4 invisible),
2,658
guests, and 5
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Samuel Alito
#42771
10/31/05 11:59 PM
10/31/05 11:59 PM
|
|
The man President Bush nominated today to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is a "Roman Catholic of Italian descent." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4392544.stmIf he's confirmed, this will give the Roman Catholics a 5-person majority on the Supreme Court. John Roberts (Chief Justice), Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas are Catholics already serving on the Court. http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html
|
|
|
Re: Samuel Alito
#42772
11/01/05 02:56 PM
11/01/05 02:56 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,163
Muncie, IN
|
|
Why is that fact significant? Would you be as concerned if there were five Adventists on the Court? ======= Edited out unnecessary quote of the previous post. - Daryl [ November 03, 2005, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: Daryl Fawcett ]
|
|
|
Re: Samuel Alito
#42773
11/01/05 10:10 PM
11/01/05 10:10 PM
|
|
I must conclude that you're never read Great Controversy, Darius, and aren't aware of the Adventist understanding of latter-day events.
|
|
|
Re: Samuel Alito
#42774
11/01/05 10:13 PM
11/01/05 10:13 PM
|
|
NARLA's take on the Alito nomination: quote: Subject: Nomination of Judge Alito Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 17:18:55 -0500 (EST) From: North American Religious Liberty Association
Dear Friends of Freedom:
As all of you know, Judge Alito has been nominated to fill the place of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. We are currently examining his record in regard to religious liberty. I am writing to you to give you our initial review.
At the outset, it is worth noting that it is the policy of the North American Religious Liberty Association to oppose any religious tests for public office. This is for three reasons. First, there is no indication the religious affiliation of an American judge determines whether she/he is willing to protect religious freedom. Second, imposing a religious test for office is, in itself, a violation of religious freedom. Third, the teachings of Christ require that we don’t treat others in a way we ourselves would find objectionable.
Rather than adhering to a faulted religious test to determine who is suitable for the Supreme Court, we examine the record of the individual. The analysis we have done to date indicates that as a Judge Alito has a good record of upholding the free exercise of religion and his decisions on separation of church and state are unremarkable.
In FOP Newark Lodge No. 12 v. City of Newark, a 1999 case, Judge Alito drafted the majority opinion finding a the New Jersey Police Department was required to accommodate Muslims who wear beards. The case was carefully written to provide the Muslims in question the best protection available under the First Amendment. He followed a similar tact in a case involving a Native American who brought a religious liberty case. In both these cases, the care he took to protect religious minorities is commendable. In addition, Judge Alito's disposition towards Saturday Sabbath accommodation in the workplace is more favorable than we routinely receive in many courts in the land. Further, his decisions on separation of church and state (Establishment Clause), appear unremarkable and follow Supreme Court precedent.
Our analysis will mature as more documents become available. Should we locate any indication of hostility to the rights of religious minorities we will inform you. This is a very key moment in the history of the Supreme Court. There is a lot riding on this nomination. Please keep the process in your prayers as we contemplate the future of our nation. If you haven’t already, I want to invite you to become a member of the North American Religious Liberty Association and join us as we stand strong for the God given right to freedom of conscience. You can join at www.religiousliberty.info or by calling (301)680-6683.
Sincerely,
James Standish
|
|
|
Re: Samuel Alito
#42775
11/02/05 12:39 PM
11/02/05 12:39 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,163
Muncie, IN
|
|
quote: Originally posted by John H.: I must conclude that you're never read Great Controversy, Darius, and aren't aware of the Adventist understanding of latter-day events.
And if you had stayed a little longer in "The Booth of Conclusions" you would have learned that I also think for myself. As soon as you have installed this module please answer the questions I asked, if you are so inclined.
|
|
|
Re: Samuel Alito
#42776
11/02/05 09:14 PM
11/02/05 09:14 PM
|
|
Darius you may think for yourself but that does not take away the facts as we know them concerning prophesy and the papacy.
You ask if we would be concerned if there were 5 SDA's on the court. Well there are not 5 SDA's on the court and I doubt very much that there ever will be:) However any SDA should sit up and take notice when the Catholic church has so much power in the US. While we should never run around saying that the sky is falling I do think it is safe to say that the sky is getting weaker. Things are falling into place to make it very easy for Gods people to be persecuted.
Redfog
|
|
|
Re: Samuel Alito
#42777
11/02/05 09:54 PM
11/02/05 09:54 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,163
Muncie, IN
|
|
Redfog, I have listened to lots of rhetoric and know for a fact that the only prophecy any man is able to interpret is prophecy that has already come to pass. Anyone is free to say whatever he wants about the future. I don't have to believe him.
If you want to think that 5 Catholics on the court means that the Catholic church controls the judiciary then I won't argue that point with you either.
|
|
|
Re: Samuel Alito
#42778
11/02/05 09:56 PM
11/02/05 09:56 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
There's been too much concern on current events since the beginning of Adventism. The Spirit of Prophecy warned about this in her day. When World War 2 happened, when Israel was established, when Kennedy was elected, whenever we have a new pope, any of these events, and many others, cause some to speculate that the time is near because of this or that event.
Christ could have come some 150 years ago, according to the Spirit of Prophecy. There is nothing happening now, that could not have happened then, it terms of some sort of pre-requisite for Christ's coming.
The issues involved in Christ's coming are spiritual. When Christ's character is prefectly reproduced in His people, then He will come and claim them as His own.
|
|
|
Re: Samuel Alito
#42779
11/03/05 12:28 AM
11/03/05 12:28 AM
|
|
Darius what you are saying is that you don't believe in prophesy? Or should we pick and choose? Can we believe in the 2nd Advent?
Now if you don't believe in Biblical prophesy or Mrs White then I can understand why there would be no concern about the courts having a Catholic majority.
Maybe nothing will come of this however I really hope that it will. I'm ready for the rapture, sooner the better.
Redfog
|
|
|
Re: Samuel Alito
#42780
11/03/05 12:07 PM
11/03/05 12:07 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,163
Muncie, IN
|
|
Things get really messed up when we come to conclusions that are not clearly indicated by what somebody says. I spoke about interpretation of prophecy. I never intimated that I do not believe in prophecy. Why did you have to muddy the waters with that? It is a sign of weakness when we need to introduce concepts that will cause readers to automatically react against the ones we are opposed to in a discussion. You need to study the Bible a bit better. You will realize that you are completely mistaken on the requirements for the second coming. ======= Edited out unnecessary quote of previous post. - Daryl [ November 03, 2005, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Daryl Fawcett ]
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|