Showing posts with label corporation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corporation. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 13, 2026

The Seventh-day Adventist Name


Trademark and Logo Usage


The Seventh-day Adventist Name

Church trademarks, such as “Seventh-day Adventist,” “Adventist,” and “Ministry,” may be used only in connection with denominational ministries and non-commercial activities of approved lay and professional groups. Use of these trademarks shall be controlled by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists through its Trademark Committee. Church trademarks shall not be used in any manner that will jeopardize the Church’s tax-exempt status.

The Seventh-day Adventist Logo

The registered trademark may be used by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, its entities, institutions, and churches, as authorized by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, its divisions, unions, and conferences.

Trademarks shall not be utilized in commercial endeavors.

Sunday, March 31, 2024

Trademark and Logo Usage THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST NAME


Trademark and Logo Usage

THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST NAME

Church trademarks, such as “Seventh-day Adventist,” “Adventist,” and “Ministry,” may be used only in connection with denominational ministries and non-commercial activities of approved lay and professional groups. Use of these trademarks shall be controlled by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists through its Trademark Committee. Church trademarks shall not be used in any manner that will jeopardize the Church’s tax-exempt status.
THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST LOGO

The registered trademark may be used by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, its entities, institutions, and churches, as authorized by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, its divisions, unions, and conferences.

Trademarks shall not be utilized in commercial endeavors.
REGISTERED TRADEMARKS

ADVENTIST®

ADVENTIST BOOK CENTER®

ADVENTIST COMMUNITY SERVICES®

ADVENTIST COMMUNITY SERVICES Design®

ADVENTIST HEALTH® (fancy)

ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM®

ADVENTIST HEALTHCARE®

ADVENTIST INFORMATION MINISTRY®

ADVENTIST LAWYER®

ADVENTIST-LAYMEN’S SERVICES AND INDUSTRIES® (ASI)

ADVENTIST NEWSLINE®

ADVENTIST NEWS NETWORK®

ADVENTIST PIONEER LIBRARY®

ADVENTIST REVIEW®

ADVENTIST RISK MANAGEMENT®



Sunday, September 09, 2018

5 Corporations Now Dominate Our Privatized Intelligence Industry


5 Corporations Now Dominate Our Privatized Intelligence Industry

This unaccountable oligarchy of spies controls the information that guides our military and civilian leaders.



September 8, 2016



Director of National Intelligence James Clapper at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in Washington in February 2016. Previously, Clapper held a position in the private sector with SRA International. (AP Photo / Alex Brandon)


The recent integration of two military contractors into a $10 billion behemoth is the latest in a wave of mergers and acquisitions that have transformed America’s privatized, high-tech intelligence system into what looks like an old-fashioned monopoly.

In August, Leidos Holdings, a major contractor for the Pentagon and the National Security Agency, completed a long-planned merger with the Information Systems & Global Solutions division of Lockheed Martin, the global military giant. The 8,000 operatives employed by the new company do everything from analyzing signals for the NSA to tracking down suspected enemy fighters for US Special Forces in the Middle East and Africa.

The sheer size of the new entity makes Leidos one of the most powerful companies in the intelligence-contracting industry, which is worth about $50 billion today. According to a comprehensive study I’ve just completed on public and private employment in intelligence, Leidos is now the largest of five corporations that together employ nearly 80 percent of the private-sector employees contracted to work for US spy and surveillance agencies.

This is incredibly risky for a country so dependent on intelligence to fight global wars and prevent domestic attacks.

Yes, that’s 80 percent. For the first time since spy agencies began outsourcing their core analytic and operational work in the late 1990s, the bulk of the contracted work goes to a handful of companies: Leidos, Booz Allen Hamilton, CSRA, SAIC, and CACI International. This concentration of “pure plays”—a Wall Street term for companies that makes one product for a single market—marks a fundamental shift in an industry that was once a highly diverse mix of large military contractors, small and medium technology companies, and tiny “Beltway Bandits” surrounding Washington, D.C.

As I argue below, these developments are incredibly risky for a country more dependent than ever on intelligence to fight global wars and prevent domestic attacks. “The problem with just five companies providing the lion’s share of contractors is that the client, the U.S. government, won’t have much alternative when a company screws up,” says David Isenberg, the author of Shadow Force: Private Security Contractors in Iraq.

Moreover, the fact that much of this privatized work is top secret—and is generally underreported in the press—undermines the accountability and transparency of our spy agencies. That should deeply concern the American public.

Thursday, October 02, 2014

Religious Liberty and the Trademark Law - Trademarking the name Seventh Day Adventist




Religious Liberty and the Trademark Law

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States declares:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” If I understand this clause correctly, the Constitution of the United States of America does not support a church’s use of federal law either to establish itself or to deny others the free exercise of religion, and the framers never intended for a religious denomination to pursue and prosecute, under U.S law, members that denomination considers being heretic. The overall purpose of this amendment was to establish morality in regards to matters of religion in a secular society, and to keep civil authority from meddling with the minds and consciences of men regarding their duty and loyalty to God as they believed. Sadly, this amendment has been abrogated through crafty and persistent manipulation.




In 1981, the Seventh-day Adventist Church General Conference Corporation acting for the church and as head of the church obtained a trademark registration for the name “Seventh-day Adventist” with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, becoming the very first Protestant church denomination in America to appeal to the state for protection of her name. Previous to this action, certain former pastors and members that had seen what they deemed apostasy from her original doctrine had separated from the church and formed other groups bearing the same name, while not tithing to, or supporting the General Conference (GC). Some of these new groups began to speak out against this apostasy and teach a message that reflected more closely the beliefs of the church’s founders. Fearing that the “good name” would be misrepresented and tarnished by these “off shoot” movements, and jealous for the money that went to support their work, the GC obtained legal rights to the name, and began to plan legal prosecution. Beginning with the church’s first prosecution in 1986 with the case of former conference Pastor John Marik and the Kona, Hawaii Seventh-day Adventist Congregational Church, the GC proceeded to seek out and take to court other “rogue” bodies, and still continues her conquest today (Chandler, “Tiny Church”).

The GC’s latest attention is focused upon the Creation Seventh-day Adventist church located at Guys, TN. “A small church in Guys has defied a federal court order to stop using the Seventh Day Adventist name and has repainted the sign on their church this week. Lucan Chartier, acting pastor of the church, said the members of Creation Seventh Day Adventists would be willing to go to jail for their beliefs. ‘We believe God gave us the name to use,’ said Chartier. ‘We do not want to be arrested, but we would do that for our convictions.’ A federal judge ordered removal of the name from the Guys church because of a violation of the trademark of the Seventh Day Adventist church. The church sign was painted over on Feb. 15. The church in Guys did try for a short time using the name A Creation Seventh Day & Adventist Church to avoid problems with the international Seventh Day Adventist church… ‘We tried to satisfy them with a different name and that did not work.’ Chartier said. ‘When the change did not satisfy them, we went back to using our original name’” (York, “Church Defies”).

The founder of the Creation SDA (CSDA) church, Walter O. “Chick” McGill III has been dancing on the nerves of the GC since he published his first paper, “Crucified Afresh”, in 1991, condemning them over the trademark issue; by 1994, he was moving onto the worldwide web in order to facilitate getting his message out; by ’96, he had begun establishing internet domains under the name Seventh-day Adventist. McGill was quicker to understand the effectiveness of the internet to spread his message than the GC was to spread theirs, and when the Corporation got wind of this, they moved to confiscate the sites from him. “On May 23, 2006, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center received notice from the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists regarding several domain names operated by the church. The defendant (McGill) claimed that such a confiscation of web domains would be a violation of religious freedom.

“In the decision rendered on July 21, 2006, WIPO concluded that although ‘Respondent alleges that he is involved in the free dissemination of the gospel of Jesus Christ and not in commercial activity [...]’ and disclaimers were posted on the domains in question, ‘persons interested in finding religious information are Internet users and consumers within the meaning of the Policy.’ They further concluded several of the church's domain names to be infringing on the trademark held by the General Conference, and based on these conclusions, WIPO ordered ‘that the Domain Names be transferred to Complainant’” (Wikipedia).

In 2004, McGill began to establish a church mission in Rwanda, Africa, and is now over there to avoid prosecution. Allegedly, if he returns to the U.S., he will be arrested and transported to jail. “The intention of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists is to confine me in prison until I agree to abide by the Permanent Injunction ordered against me. At the same time, they seek a monetary sanction of over $35,000, which amounts to a stiff fine as punishment for my contempt of court” (McGill, “My Incarceration”). In late May, 2010, Lucan Chartier posted on his Facebook wall that he was being summoned to court for a contempt of court hearing having to do with repainting the church signs and for not showing up for a deposition to “help shut down the church.” Since Chartier had been fairly active on Facebook, it is possible that he could be incarcerated at this time, as there have been no other posts on his wall since late May.

It is evident that nothing good has come of these litigations. Since the GC first exercised her right, other denominations have followed suit in similar cases. Many members within her walls are increasingly curious about the rumors they hear, which is causing agitation and unease. Instead of causing unity, there has been much division in her ranks. She has become totally invested in securing to herself a worldly kingdom, much to the dismay of those members who recognize that the church was founded on the principle that God’s kingdom is “not of this world.” John 18:36. While the GC has commandeered federal authority to promote its own agenda and has, thereby, abrogated the first amendment of the Constitution, it remains legal under the Trademark anti-dilution law for the Corporation to prove the distinctiveness of its name so that it cannot be used by any other organization in a situation where there would be a “likelihood of confusion”, thereby protecting the mark from the use or adoption of marks used for completely unrelated goods or services. Although the GC commits no illegal criminal act by taking advantage of this provision, there are much weightier matters to be considered.
As a religious entity first, the Seventh-day Adventist Corporation’s primary concern should be proper moral behavior toward God and her fellow men, yet she moves swiftly away from moral accountability, proceeding as if she answered primarily to the secular courts of this land. She ignores both the counsel and instruction of both the Bible that she claims to uphold, and that of the pioneers of the church. Let us take a look at what these have to say.

Since the church claims that the Bible is her standard, then it follows good reason that her actions should be examined according to those instructions laid out therein. In 1Corinthians 6:1, Paul asks a serious question to the church saying, “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?” He follows this question in verse 7 by stating that, “There is utterly a fault among you, because you go to law with one another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded” ( Apostle)? The GC’s behavior does not follow this counsel. Instead, they are building and protecting a worldly empire and cannot stand to trust in God for their protection, but seek the temporal arm of civil law to keep from being defrauded. This is hardly a reflection of the sentiments put forth in the first amendment by those whose motto was “In God We Trust.” One wonders how such plain counsel could be ignored.






If there is any doubt as to the clarity of scripture regarding these things concerning the church, let’s take a look at what various Adventist pioneers had to say about the union of church and state. Ellen G. White, a cofounder of the Seventh-day Adventist church and the author to whom this church ascribes for much direction states: “The union of the church with the state, be the degree never so slight, while it may appear to bring the world nearer to the church, does in reality but bring the church nearer to the world” (White, 297). “When the early church became corrupted by departing from the simplicity of the gospel, and accepting heathen rites and customs, she lost the Spirit and power of God; and in order to control the consciences of the people she sought the support of the secular power. The result was the papacy, a church that controlled the power of the State, and employed it to further her own ends, especially for the punishment of ‘heresy.’ In order for the United States to form an image of the beast, the religious power must so control the civil government that the authority of the State will also be employed by the church to accomplish her own ends.

“Whenever the church has obtained secular power, she has employed it to punish dissent from her doctrines. Protestant churches that have followed in the steps of Rome by forming alliance with worldly powers have manifested a similar desire to restrict liberty of conscience” (White, 443).

“Let the principle once be established in the United States that the church may employ or control the power of the state; that religious observances may be enforced by secular laws; in short, that the authority of church and state is to dominate the conscience, and the triumph of Rome in this country is assured” (White, 581).

Another writes: “I need not take to give a definition in detail of what the image of the beast is; we all know well that it is the church power using the government, the civil power, for church purposes. … Now I want to state a little further upon the principle that no Christian, being a citizen of the kingdom of God, can of right start any procedure in connection with the civil government. After it is started by the government itself, that is another question… I repeat therefore, that upon the principles which govern kingdoms and governments, the very principle of the law in heaven, or law in earth, a Christian cannot start any procedure in connection with civil government. And of all Christians, Seventh-day Adventists cannot do it. The very keeping of the Sabbath forbids it” (Jones, 28).

One more Adventist witness writes: “The true church is a chaste virgin. (2 Cor. 11:2). The church that is joined with the world in friendship is a harlot. It is this unlawful connection with the kings of the earth that constitutes her the great harlot of the Apocalypse. (Rev.17). Thus, the Jewish Church, at first espoused to the Lord (Jer. 2:3; 31:32), became a harlot (Eze.16)… The unlawful union with the world of which Babylon is guilty, is positive that it (Babylon) is the civil power… For these reasons, it is very evident that the Babylon of the Apocalypse is the professed church united with the world” (Smith, 648).

It is plain to see that according to the Seventh-day Adventist pioneer’s beliefs, the church for which they labored so earnestly in the 1800s has today committed adultery against her Maker by joining hands with civil power to enforce her decrees and protect her name. The church pioneers and national forefathers always warned against this union of church and state, but now they are gone, and a new era has been ushered in; one of force and tyranny. This nation was established upon principles that protected freedom of conscience. The forefathers fought to escape the tyranny and religious oppression that they once endured from their motherland. God set up this country to be a haven from religious persecution, but times are changing, and we are on the cusp of a greater persecution of those who would follow their consciences in opposition of the General Conference Corporation’s dictates.

“When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support it, so that it’s professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, it is a sign, I say, of its being a bad one.” – Benjamin Franklin to Richard Price, 9 Oct. 1780 Writings 8:153--54


[(York)(Wikipedia)(McGill)(Apostle)(White)(Jones)(Smith) Works Cited: Apostle, Paul the King James Study Bible/1 Corinthians 6:1,7. Loma Linda, CA: Pacificrim Press, 1997.; Chandler, Russell. Tiny Church in Hawaii Battles Adventists Over Trademark Use. Newspaper Article. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Times, 1988.; Jones, A.T. "General Conference Bulletin." (1895): 28. McGill, "Chick". "My Incarceration." 5 12 2009. 14 11 2010 http://www.whypastorwaltermcgillisnotaffiliatedwithgcsdaadventistchurch.net/PDF/MyIncarceration.pdf/ Smith, Uriah. Daniel and the Revelation. Hagerstown, Maryland: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1972. White, Ellen G. The Great Controversy. Nampa,Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 2005.Wikipedia. Wikipedia/Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church 14 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Seventh_Day_Adventist_Church#WIPO_ruling_on_disputed_domain_names/ York, Jeff. Church defies court order. Local news. Corinth, Mississippi: Daily Corinthian, March 13, 2010.]
  

Source
.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Facts About The USA!




by Frank M. Webb
06 August 2014

from FrankWebb Website



These documents are NOT secret.

They ARE a matter of Public Record.


HERE ARE TRUTHFUL FACTS

MOST PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW...

BUT SHOULD…



  1. The IRS is Not a US government agency. It is an agency of the IMF - International Monetary Fund (Diversified Metal Products vs. I.R.S et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391)
  2. The IMF (International Monetary Fund) is an agency of the United Nations - UN (Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed. page 816)
  3. The United States has NOT had a Treasury since 1921 (41 Stat. Ch 214 page 654)
  4. The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF (International Monetary Fund) (Presidential Documents Volume 24-No. 4 page 113, 22 U.S.C. 285-2887)
  5. The United States does not have any employees because there is no longer a United States! No more reorganizations. After over 200 years of bankruptcy it is finally over. (Executive Order 12803)
  6. The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA and all of the other alphabet gangs were never part of the U.S. government, even though the "U.S. Government" held stock in the agencies. (U.S. vs. Strang, 254 US491 Lewis vs. US, 680 F.2nd, 1239)
  7. Social Security Numbers are issued by the U.N. through the IMF (International Monetary Fund). The application for a Social Security Number is the SS5 Form. The Department of the Treasury (IMF) issues the SS5 forms and not the Social Security Administration. The new SS5 forms do not state who publishes them while the old form states they are "Department of the Treasury". (20 CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) Chap. 111 Subpart B. 422.103 (b))
  8. There are NO Judicial Courts in America and have not been since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes. (FRC vs. GE 281 US 464 Keller vs. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat 138-178)
  9. There have NOT been any judges in America since 1789. There have just been administrators. (FRC vs. GE 281 US 464 Keller vs. PE 261 US 428 1 Stat. 138-178)
  10. According to GATT (The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) you MUST have a Social Security number. (House Report (103-826)
  11. New York City is defined in Federal Regulations as the United Nations. Rudolph Guiliani stated on C-Span that "New York City is the capital of the World." For once, he told the truth. (20 CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) Chap. 111, subpart B 44.103 (b) (2) (2) )
  12. Social Security is not insurance or a contract, nor is there a Trust Fund. (Helvering vs. Davis 301 US 619 Steward Co. vs. Davis 301 US 548)
  13. Your Social Security check comes directly from the IMF (International Monetary Fund), which is an agency of the United Nations. (It says "U.S. Department of Treasury" at the top left corner, which again is part of the U.N. as pointed out above)
  14. You own NO property!!! Slaves can't own property. Read carefully the Deed to the property you think is yours. You are listed as a TENANT. (Senate Document 43, 73rd Congress 1st Session)
  15. The most powerful court in America is NOT the United States Supreme court, but rather the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (42 PA. C.S.A. 502)
  16. The King of England financially backed both sides of the American Revolutionary War. (Treaty of Versailles-July 16, 1782 Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80)
  17. You CANNOT use the U.S. Constitution to defend yourself because you are NOT a party to it! The U.S. Constitution applies to the CORPORATION OF THE UNITED STATES, a privately owned and operated corporation (headquartered out of Washington, DC) much like IBM (International Business Machines, Microsoft, et al) and NOT to the people of the sovereign Republic of the united States of America. (Padelford Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah 14 Georgia 438, 520)
  18. America is a British Colony. The United States is a corporation, not a land mass and it existed before the Revolutionary War and the British Troops did not leave until 1796 (Republica vs. Sweers 1 Dallas 43, Treaty of Commerce 8 Stat 116, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80, IRS Publication 6209, Articles of Association October 20, 1774)
  19. UNITED STATES is a Corporation - There are Two Constitutions-Sovereignty:
  20. Britain is owned by the Vatican. (Treaty of 1213)
  21. The Pope can abolish any law in the United States (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol. 1, 53-54)
  22. A 1040 Form is for tribute paid to Britain (IRS Publication 6209)
  23. The Pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of conquest and discovery. (Papal Bulls of 1495 & 1493)
  24. The Pope has ordered the genocide and enslavement of millions of people. (Papal Bulls of 1455 & 1493)
  25. The Pope's laws are obligatory on everyone. (Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix, c. vii, n. 4. Prati, 1844 Syllabus Prop 28, 29, 44)
  26. We are slaves and own absolutely nothing, NOT even what we think are our children. (Tillman vs. Roberts 108 So. 62, Van Koten vs. Van Koten 154 N.E. 146, Senate Document 438 73rd Congress 1st Session, Wynehammer vs. People 13 N.Y. REP 378, 481)
  27. Military dictator George Washington divided up the States (Estates) in to Districts (Messages and papers of the Presidents Volume 1 page 99 1828 Dictionary of Estate)
  28. "The People" does NOT include you and me. (Barron vs. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore 32 U.S. 243)
  29. It is NOT the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect THE CORPORATION and arrest code breakers. (SAPP vs. Tallahassee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, REiff vs. City of Phila. 477 F. 1262, Lynch vs. NC Dept. of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247)
  30. Every thing in the "United States" is up for sale: bridges, roads, water, schools, hospitals, prisons, airports, etc, etc… Did anybody take time to check who bought Klamath Lake?? (Executive Order 12803)
  31. "We are human capital" (Executive Order 13037) The world cabal makes money off of the use of your signatures on mortgages, car loans, credit cards, your social security number, etc.
  32. The U.N. - United Nations - has financed the operations of the United States government (the corporation of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) for over 50 years (U.S. Department of Treasury is part of the U.N. see above) and now owns every man, woman and child in America. The U.N. also holds all of the land of America in Fee Simple.


The good news is we don't have to fulfill
"our" fictitious obligations.
You can discharge a fictitious obligation
with another's fictitious obligation.


.

Wednesday, August 06, 2014

Corporations are using dubious research to take over prisons





How companies funded research supporting the privatization of prisons

By Matt Stroud on August 6, 2014 12:37 pm Email @ssttrroouudd






Since the mid-1980s, private companies have contracted with states and branches of the federal government to assume certain prison operations. The argument behind these contracts has been that private companies — which are not beholden to things like pension arrangements with correctional officer’s unions — can cut prison spending in ways that governments can not.

For the most part, this argument was theoretical — an idea never definitively proven by any significant academic studies (though some have tried to do so). But then, in April 2013, came a study out of Temple University in Philadelphia. This study found that private prison companies could help governments cut costs from between 12.46 percent and 58.61 percent. It looked like a groundbreaking study on its surface, and the private prison industry ran with it. But recently that appearance has begun to fade and reveal a very different picture: that of corporate prisons taking a page out of Big Tobacco's playbook.

Private prison companies were doing well enough without the academic boost. Though these companies only oversee about 8 percent of United States prisons, the number of prisoners in private facilities rose by 37 percent between 2002 and 2009, and the companies generally make a lot of money: Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the largest private prison company in the world, has a market cap of $3.74 billion; one of its competitors, the GEO Group, has a market cap of $2.46 billion. But the study was nonetheless helpful; it backed up the savings claims with an ostensibly independent study from a reputable academic institution. It brought private prisons — and the contracts those companies were lobbying to secure with states and the federal government — into policy discussions all over the country. The study’s authors, Temple economics professors Simon Hakim and Erwin A. Blackstone, even wrote op-eds in newspapers where private prisons were being considered by lawmakers. This was all excellent news for private prison companies.

"THE STUDY RECEIVED FUNDING BY MEMBERS OF THE PRIVATE CORRECTIONS INDUSTRY."

Soon after, however, the study’s findings began to look a little less excellent.

Private prison companies have an enemy in a man named Alex Friedmann. He’s a former CCA prisoner and editor of Prison Legal News who has devoted a significant portion of his post-prison life to pointing out the faults in private prisons. He’s aligned with unions — which are opposed to private prison companies — and he argues that, by cutting costs, these companies put the welfare of prisoners in jeopardy.

When the Temple study was released, he noticed the very last line in a press release that went along with it: "The study received funding by members of the private corrections industry."

Friedmann wondered: how could the study be independent if it received funding from private prison companies? The press release had made it clear that these companies had helped pay for the study, but the original study itself did not. He wrote about his concerns in op-eds, often responding directly to op-eds written by professors Hakim and Blackstone. He filed an ethics complaint in May 2013 with Temple University alleging that the professors "breached their ethical responsibilities" by not disclosing their funding sources. In the meantime, members of the private prison industry continued to tout the study’s findings.

Then last month, the ACLU got involved, publishing an open letter to private prison companies outlining the study’s faults and "astonishingly misleading" conclusions. By mid-July, Temple finally made an announcement. It was distancing itself from the study: "Temple didn’t receive any grant funds for this work, and we don’t endorse or interfere with faculty when they conduct independent research — their work is their own. It’s not a Temple University study, it’s the work of the professors."

This reaction from Temple isn’t uncommon, says Vickie J. Williams, a law professor at Gonzaga University who has written about private funding concerns in health studies. She told me told me that corporations fund studies frequently. It happens in health care all the time. But there are expectations about how to ensure that privately funded research is sufficiently scrutinized. Peer review — where academic studies are put in front of reputable scholars who pick apart those studies and then publish notable work in academic journals — is a way to do that. The Temple study was not peer reviewed before its public release last April. Williams thus compared it to research funded by tobacco companies. "Tobacco companies sponsored a great deal of biomedical research involving tobacco," she told me. "And of course the fact that they had the power to suppress or skew the results of that research lead to a great many lawsuits."

It’s anyone’s guess whether lawsuits will befall private prison companies in the wake of Temple’s study. In the meantime, the controversy continues. The Independent Institute, a libertarian think-tank, published the Temple study in June. Friedmann is "putting together a faculty sign-on letter to Temple requesting that the school adopt a formal policy regarding disclosure of funding sources of academic research," he wrote me in an email. And a CCA representative denies the worries over the Temple study amount to anything significant at all: "To date, no one has pushed back on or taken to task the findings, or the validity of the research," the representative told Inside Higher Ed.

That last part isn’t exactly true. The ACLU’s open letter disputes a number of the study’s findings. And I’ll offer another as an example:

The Temple study's findings in Arizona go against even what Arizona's own state legislature found about prison costs. Arizona's legislature found that private prisons didn't result in a significant cost savings, while the Temple study found the opposite. Why the discrepancy? Among the reasons why the Temple study disagreed is that the "state provides all the required medical care at selected [Arizona] prisons, while private contractors have limits on the care they are required to provide." Which means, in short, that the Temple academics chose not to take into account the costs of prisoner medical care in private prisons. That’s a major omission.

THE STUDY DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE COSTS OF PRISONER MEDICAL CARE IN PRIVATE PRISONS.

Regardless, I can’t help but think the study’s existence — and the debates over its funding, its veracity, and its findings — are good. The study itself attempts to justify a system with an argument. That argument may be a purchased. It may be flawed. But at least it’s there as a point of discussion.

This discussion — about private prisons in this case, but more broadly about the state of our prison system in general — is one we need to have.

The numbers are staggering. The US throws so many people into prison, the numbers sound fictional. In Pennsylvania, the state where I live, there are more than 51,000 people serving time in state prisons, about equal to the number of people who live in the state’s capitol, Harrisburg. The national numbers are similarly unthinkable: about 2.2 million people live in prison cells nationwide. Counting the people who are on parole, on probation, awaiting trial in jail, or otherwise under the supervision of our vast incarceration system, the overall number rises to 7 million, about the population of Hong Kong. And yes, it’s expensive to do all this: we spend more than $60 billion per year locking people up, monitoring their every step, ushering them through criminal court proceedings, and forcing them to be marked as "ex-cons," ex-offenders," or, in the worst-case scenarios, prisoners for life.

Public figures from Rand Paul and George Will to Newt Gingrich and Van Jones believe we need to talk about these things. And, despite their faults, it's studies like the Temple study that can bring these issues up for public scrutiny. They can at least be used as a jumping-off point — a way to bring the discussion from, perhaps, a long and hilarious segment on John Oliver’s HBO program to real change that might eliminate mandatory minimum sentences, roll back harsh punishments for non-violent crimes and drug-related offenses, and incarcerate fewer people.

And if any study can insinuate such changes into a national discussion — whether purposely or not — that’s a study worth doing.


Source
.
.

Saturday, July 19, 2014

Jan Paulsen: Challenges for a global Church in the 21st Century



Stuttgart/Germany, 02.06.2014/APD



Pastor Jan Paulsen (left) and pastor Frieder Schmid, translator
© Photo: Reinhard Knobloch

Pastor Dr Jan Paulsen, former President of the General Conference (headquarter of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist church) spoke in the Seventh-day Adventist church Stuttgart/Germany about the church’s challenges in the 21st century. He stressed that the decision about women’s ordination as pastors was one of the top priorities. A wide range of committees in the world church have tackled this question for the past 40 years. In 1990 the General Assembly of the General Conference (World Council) and the supreme decision-making body denied the right of women’s ordination. When the Adventists in North America asked for permission to ordain women as pastors in their area of responsibility, the majority of the world council meeting in Utrecht in 1995 rejected the request again. This very same question is again on the agenda of the General Conference General Assembly in 2015 which is scheduled from 2 to 11 July in San Antonio, Texas/USA. On fears that a decision to ordain women, could divide the church, Paulsen replied : "Perhaps so. But equally, not to ordain women has the same probability to divide our church." It is, therefore, important to find a solution which is acceptable to both parties. All arguments – whether for or against – have been presented and exchanged and the problem cannot be postponed again.

Church – an active part of life or irrelevant sect

According to Paulsen, there are, however, a number of additional challenges for the church. Despite cultural differences and theological challenges it was necessary for the global church to preserve the unity and identity. A global community of faith faced the difficult task of integrating their spiritual values into the practical aspects of daily life in many different cultures. It was necessary to resist the ‘easy solution’ to withdraw from people who had completely different values of life into ‘the own perfect world’. Paulsen cautioned: "Either the public accepts us as part of society and sees that we want to be an active part of life in the political community, or the public considers us as an irrelevant sect which dissociates itself from all others. Our world may no longer be interested in God, but it is a world full of people whom we, under no circumstances, can leave to fend for themselves." Adventists should therefore live out their values, prepare people for the future, such as by way of education, and act as peacemakers.

Inter-church relations

In dealing with other Christian churches and other world religions Paulsen also posed the question: "In our dealings with them are we having an open-minded attitude and apply a constructive dialogue? Do we explain to them who we are, what we believe and which duties we have, or do we seal ourselves off, withdraw and consider any communication with other faiths as dangerous?" Either Adventists introduce themselves "or others will do it for us – but then we will be most likely misrepresented or even ridiculed.” It was of course easier to only interact with like-minded people, however, the ‘Truth’ would not have to be afraid of scrutiny. It was the duty of Adventist church members, pastors, teachers and leaders to demonstrate how one's own convictions and the respect for other faiths could co-exist.

Jan Paulsen was born in Northern Norway. After finishing his studies he served as pastor, professor and dean at Adventist universities in Africa. He then taught at Newbold College in England, where he soon was appointed dean. He earned his doctorate in theology at the University of Tübingen in 1972. In 1980 he was elected Secretary and in 1983 President of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Northern and Southeastern Europe. In 1999 he was elected President of the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventists (world headquarter), an appointment which he held until the age of 75 years in 2010. In 2012 the King of Norway decorated Jan Paulsen ‘for his meritorious service to the welfare of mankind’. Paulsen is married to Kari and they have an adult daughter and two sons.

.

Saturday, June 21, 2014

Adventist - Catholics


As prophesied by E. G. White, 
God's messenger to the SDA Church.
The CROSS in your church was not a coincidence 
It did not happen by chance.

Prophecy:
“That night I dreamed that I was in Battle Creek looking out from the side glass at the door and saw a company marching up to the house, two and two. They looked stern and determined. I knew them well and turned to open the parlor door to receive them, but thought I would look again. The scene was changed. The company now presented the appearance of a Catholic procession. One bore in his hand a cross, another a reed. And as they approached, the one carrying a reed made a circle around the house, saying three times: "This house is proscribed. The goods must be confiscated. They have spoken against our holy order." Terror seized me, and I ran through the house, out of the north door, and found myself in the midst of a company, some of whom I knew, but I dared not speak a word to them for fear of being betrayed. I tried to seek a retired spot where I might weep and pray without meeting eager, inquisitive eyes wherever I turned. I repeated frequently: "If I could only understand this! If they will tell me what I have said or what I have done!" Testimonies for The Church Vol. 1 p. 578, January 29, 1867

Fulfillment:
“You've waited more than 150 years for the Church to adopt an official, worldwide corporate identity. Fortunately, there is no need to wait any longer for your sign.”
“Positive ID is the officially licensed supplier for the Seventh-day Adventist logo accessories so we can guarantee that your signage complies with the strict global identity standards required by the General Conference.” Ministry Magazine July 1997 {back cover].

“The years 1996 and 1997 will go down in Seventh-day Adventist church history as the era during which our church adopted and Implemented a unified corporate image.” Ministry Magazine p. 31, July 1997. Actually the portrayal of a cross in an engraved gold medallion as a symbol of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and was given to the pope did already exist in 1977.

“The book presented was the Adventist missionary book Faith in Action, and the medallion was a gold-covered symbol of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The medallion is an engraved witness to the Adventist faith in Christ as Creator, Redeemer, and soon-coming Lord, in the cross and Bible…” Adventist Review August 11, 1977. But it was not until 1996 when it was finally implemented and adopted as a world wide, corporate identity. 

“The explanation of the church's corporate (logo) identity is on our web site at www.adventist.org.  It was voted several years ago (1996) by the Executive Committee of the General Conference during its Annual Council. It expresses our beliefs and has been discussed by several focus groups before it was taken for a decision… Nobody required anybody to do what we did. Representatives from the world church, in council, discussed the logo, which, by the way, includes a full name of the church, and agreed that this is what we will do.” Letter of Ray Dabrowski, Communication Director of SDA Church World Headquarters, Wed, 27 June 2001.

There it is, the exact fulfillment of Ellen G. White's dream in Testimonies for the Church Volume 1, page 578 (1867) . That this [SDA Church] will carry or raise-up the standard of Rome that portrays a pagan cross thus following the track of Romanism. Please see also Testimonies to Ministers page 362.


Is the cross a Christian symbol?

“Papists place crosses upon their churches, upon their altars, and upon their garments. Everywhere is seen the insignia of the cross. Everywhere it is outwardly honored and exalted.” Great Controversy page 568

“The cross was associated with the power of Rome.” Desire of Ages page 416

“The badge of Christianity is not an outward sign, not the wearing of a cross or a crown, but it is that which reveals the union of man with God.” Ministry of Healing page 470

“The cross is recognized as one of the most important symbols of the Roman Catholic Church. It is displayed on top of roofs and towers. It is seen on altars, furnishings, and ecclesiastical garments. The floor plan of the majority of Catholic churches is laid out in the shape of the cross. Catholic homes, hospitals, and schools have the cross adorning the walls. Everywhere the cross is outwardly honored and adored – hundreds of ways!” Babylon Mystery of Religion pages 39-40
What is Roman Catholic Church's power?

"QUESTION: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holy days?

ANSWER: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of and therefore, they fondly contradict themselves by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church.

QUESTION: How prove you that?

ANSWER: Because by keeping Sunday they acknowledge the Church's power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin."

The Douay Cathechism, page 59.


What is Christ's badge according to the SDA church?

"His (Christ's) badge was a cross, not crown." Adult Teachers Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, Apr-May-June 2005, page 76, Teachers Edition.

“…As is the mother so is her daughter …” Ezekiel 16:44

“But Babylon the harlot is the mother of daughters who follow her example of corruption. Thus are represented those churches that cling to the doctrines and traditions of Rome and follow her worldly practices…” Spirit of Prophecy Vol. 4 p. 233

“In the balances of the sanctuary the Seventh-day Adventist church is to be weighed. She will be judged by the privileges and advantages that she has had. If her spiritual experience does not correspond to the advantages that Christ, at infinite cost, has bestowed on her, if the blessings conferred have not qualified her to do the work entrusted to her, on her will be pronounced the sentence: “Found wanting.”… What stronger delusion can beguile the mind than the pretense that you are building on the right foundation and that God accepts your works, when in reality you are working out many things according to worldly policy and are sinning against Jehovah? … Who can truthfully say: “Our gold is tried in the fire; our garments unspotted by the world”? I saw our Instructor pointing to the garments of so-called righteousness. Stripping them off, He laid bare the defilement beneath. Then He said to me: Can you not see how they have pretentiously covered up their defilement and rottenness of character? ‘How is the faithful city become an harlot? My Father's house is made a house of merchandise, a place whence the DIVINE PRESENCE AND GLORY HAVE DEPARTED!” Testimonies for the Church Vol. 8 p. 247-250, April 21, 1903

“A virtuous woman represents a pure church, a vile woman an apostate church. Babylon is said to be harlot...” Spirit of Prophecy Vol. 4 p. 233

Mrs. White said in 1893, “at the present time,” do not call the church Babylon (Testimonies to Ministers, page 50). That was in 1893. But 10 years later, in 1903 the church became a harlot or Babylon. In 1893, it was a man [AW Stanton] who said that the church is Babylon, but in 1903 it was God through EG White who said that the SDA church is harlot or Babylon .

“Are we hoping to see the whole church revived? THAT TIME WILL NEVER COME.” Selected Messages Vol. 1 p. 122

“And thou, Capernaum [Seventh day Adventist, who have had great light], which are exalted unto heaven [in point of privilege], SHALT BE BROUGHT DOWN TO HELL…” Review and Herald p. 69, August 1, 1893

“And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Revelation 18:4

“Likewise greet the church that is in their house.” Romans 16:5


.

Saturday, May 10, 2014

Seventh-day Adventist Church: Pasadena Public Health Director Dr. Eric Walsh does not represent church





Eric Walsh


By Lauren Gold, Pasadena Star-News


Posted: 05/06/14, 3:05 PM PDT

More stories on Pasadena Public Health Director Dr. Eric Walsh

PASADENA>> The Southern California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists issued a statement Tuesday stating that Pasadena Public Health Director and SDA associate pastor Dr. Eric Walsh does not represent the views of the church.

Walsh is an associate pastor at the Altadena Seventh-day Adventist Church and is paid by the conference; however, “he does not hold ministerial credentials from the Adventist Church, does not speak on behalf of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, and as far as we know, does not represent his views as anything other than his own,” spokeswoman Betty Cooney wrote.

“The Seventh-day Adventist church has a long history of defending the rights of everyone to believe, practice and express their personal religious convictions,” Cooney said. “Questions regarding exactly what Dr. Walsh said in previous years, their meaning, intent, and whether or not he has changed his mind, should be addressed to Dr. Walsh.”

Walsh has come under fire in recent weeks for discriminatory statements against homosexuals, Catholics, Muslims and other groups in religious sermons that have been posted online. Walsh has been placed on administrative leave from his position at the city of Pasadena while City Manager Michael Beck conducts and investigation to look into whether Walsh’s personal views have influenced his job performance.

Walsh’s sermons came to light after he was invited to speak at Pasadena City College commencement, following a scandal in which the college uninvited Oscar-winning screenwriter, actor and gay rights advocate Dustin Lance Black. Walsh backed out last week and Black has been re-invited and will speak at the commencement this weekend.

Many groups across the country have spoken out on Walsh’s statements, some, like the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, calling for his removal. Others have defended Walsh’s right to freedom of speech and religion, saying the city may open itself to a lawsuit if it terminates him.

Cooney said the Seventh-day Adventist Church does not discriminate against groups of people based on sexual orientation, race or other factors.

“The Seventh-day Adventist Church recognizes that every human being is valuable in the sight of God, and seeks to minister to all men and women in the spirit of Jesus,” Cooney said.


Source
.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Corporate Profits Soar as Executives Attack Obama Policy


By David J. Lynch - Jan 17, 2013 12:00 AM ET



Tom Donohue, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, last week said higher taxes and a “flood of new regulations” will damage an already subpar economy. “In many ways, we’re going backwards,” he said.

Such complaints, echoed by corporate executives throughout President Barack Obama’s first term, obscure one fact: American business has never had it so good.



U.S. President Barack Obama. Leigh Vogel/WireImage



U.S. corporations’ after-tax profits have grown by 171 percent under Obama, more than under any president since World War II, and are now at their highest level relative to the size of the economy since the government began keeping records in 1947, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Profits are more than twice as high as their peak during President Ronald Reagan’s administration and more than 50 percent greater than during the late-1990s Internet boom, measured by the size of the economy.

Business leaders cite low labor costs in an era of high unemployment, the Federal Reserve’s easy-money policies, and their own management savvy for the profit boom. Prosperity has come in spite of the president, not because of him, they say.

“I don’t think he deserves any credit,” John Engler, president of the Business Roundtable, a Washington-based association of chief executive officers, said in an interview.

Economists disagree. In a February 2012 survey, 80 percent of senior economics professors said unemployment was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without Obama’s stimulus spending. A July 2010 study by Alan Blinder, former Federal Reserve vice chairman, and Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics, said the stimulus, bank rescues and Fed policy “probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0.”


Political Confrontations

Extending the climb in corporate profits this year is expected to grow more challenging as labor costs rise with increased hiring. CEOs say they also face uncertainty over new health-care rules and taxes. Washington’s repetitive political confrontations threaten to further lengthen their odds.

For four years, American business has seen the Democratic president as a tax-and-spend advocate of big government who was intent on imposing red tape. Some criticized him for a lack of experience in business.

In the presidential campaign, business groups spent millions of dollars on Republican candidates in a bid to unseat Obama. Former General Electric Co. CEO Jack Welch even accused the White House of manipulating unemployment data for political advantage.
‘Clumsy Instrument’

Still, executives dislike the prospect of economic volatility even more than they dislike the president. So they’ve become reluctant White House allies in the current battle over raising the nation’s $16.4 trillion borrowing limit, which the government could hit as early as next month.

“We don’t want to reach the point where our government, in some fashion, is unable to make interest payments or is unable to pay our vendors,” said Engler, a former Republican governor of Michigan. He called the debt limit “a clumsy instrument” to force spending discipline.

Donohue told Bloomberg Television on Jan. 10 that defaulting on the U.S. debt would be a “mistake” and that lawmakers should refrain from using the borrowing limit to push for cutbacks in programs.

Bond investors, who would suffer most directly if the government defaulted on its debt, aren’t worried. The yield on the 10-year note, a benchmark for everything from mortgages to corporate borrowing costs, is lower now than on Aug. 5, 2011, when Standard & Poor’s downgraded the U.S. during the last debt ceiling showdown. The yield on 10-year Treasuries was 1.82 percent as of 5 p.m. in New York yesterday.


Denting Confidence

Business leaders say a prolonged political showdown could dent consumer confidence or unsettle equity investors. In 2011, the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) fell almost 17 percent in the 11 trading sessions following the breakdown of debt-reduction talks between the White House and congressional Republicans. The Conference Board’s consumer confidence readingdropped to its lowest level in more than two years.

Washington dysfunction threatens to scuttle a period of high profitability and rising share prices. Across the economy, corporations in their third-quarter earnings reports posted stellar profits.Caterpillar Inc. (CAT)’s earnings-per-share rose more than 32 percent from the same period the previous year while Yahoo Inc.’s grew 67 percent.

The S&P 500 index has risen more than 80 percent since Obama was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2009, as of yesterday. That’s the biggest gain under any president since at least World War II.


Slowing Growth

The debt-limit fight comes as the economy likely is growing at an annual rate of just 1.5 percent in the first quarter, although it will expand 2 percent during the year, according to the median forecast of 91 economists surveyed by Bloomberg. At a Jan. 14 news conference, the president called default a “self- inflicted wound” that could trigger a new recession and called on Republicans “to pay America’s bills on time.”

“Investors around the world will ask if the United States of America is in fact a safe bet,” Obama said. “Markets could go haywire, interest rates would spike for anybody who borrows money.”

Many companies, including small businesses, say the White House itself is casting a cloud on the economy.

They complain about excessive regulation and a tax-first, cut-spending-later approach to deficit reduction. The administration has completed only one-third of the 447 regulations mandated by the Dodd-Frank financial regulation act, Donohue said in a Jan. 10 speech in Washington.


‘Extraordinary Confusion’

Provisions of Obama’s health-care law, which is intended to expand insurance coverage to tens of millions of Americans, are creating “extraordinary confusion” for businesses, he said.

A monthly index of business sentiment maintained by the National Federation of Independent Business, was at 88 in December, a low level that, prior to the financial crisis, wasn’t seen since the 1980 recession.

William Dunkelberg, NFIB’s chief economist, said the group’s members anticipate a “pretty lousy first half of 2013.”

Corporations are holding more than $1.7 trillion in liquid assets, reflecting uncertainty over future policies. They’re investing in capital projects only 80 percent of their available internal funds, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Though that figure is up about one-third from late-2009, that ratio has been below 80 percent only once since the end of 1958.

“We’re in the curious position where businesses are net savers,” said Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics Ltd. “This net saving is a problem. It’s because businesses are too cautious.”

Amy Brundage, a White House spokeswoman, didn’t return an e-mail asking for comment.
Spending More

Since the end of 2009, corporations have been gradually putting more money to work. Liquid assets as a percentage of total corporate assets, which peaked at 6.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009, fell to 5.5 percent of assets by the third quarter of last year, the latest Federal Reserve data available.

That’s still above the 5.2 percent average over the past 20 years, though below the 5.9 percent Bush administration high in 2005’s fourth quarter.

Companies survived the “searing experience” of the financial crisis by becoming more efficient, Engler said. More than four years of the Federal Reserve’s near-zero interest rates also opened the door for companies to pay off high-cost borrowings. Last year, U.S. corporations issued more than $1.5 trillion in debt, up from $1.2 trillion the year before.


Labor Costs

In recent years, high unemployment kept labor costs in check while output surpassed pre-crisis levels. Employee compensation rose 7 percent from the end of 2008 through the third quarter of last year. That was less than half the increase registered in either of President George W. Bush’s terms. Workers’ compensation is claiming a 54 percent share of the economy, down from 59 percent as recently as 2001 and the lowest mark since March 1955.

Through 2011, profits rose in tandem with the jobless rate. Over the past year, as the unemployment rate fell, earnings continued to climb, a trend that may be losing steam.

“It’s a maturing earnings cycle, which is going to be decelerating in 2013,” says Stephen Wood, chief markets strategist for Russell Investments with $159 billion in assets under management.

To contact the reporter on this story: David J. Lynch in Washington at dlynch27@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Cesca Antonelli at fantonelli@bloomberg.net


.

Tuesday, February 01, 2011

New Adventist president reaffirms cooperation with China's Protestant organization



Wilson hosts China Christian Council representatives at world headquarters, accepts invitation to visit China

9 Jul 2010, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
Elizabeth Lechleitner/ANN


Seventh-day Adventist world church President Ted N. C. Wilson will maintain a cooperative relationship with China's officially recognized Protestant organization.

"Although the Adventist Church has distinct doctrines, we are certainly open to cooperating with fellow Christians who are lifting up Christ," Wilson said following a meeting with representatives of the China Christian Council at Adventist Church headquarters on July 6.

The China Christian Council/Three-Self Patriotic Movement is the officially recognized religious organization that oversees the activities of Protestant churches in mainland China.

While the Adventist Church established a relationship with the China Christian Council in the mid-1990s, Council representatives for the first time attended a General Conference Session, meeting in Atlanta, Georgia last week.

The visit helped cement the China Christian Council's perception of Adventists as a "mainstream" Protestant denomination, said world church General Vice President Eugene Hsu, a native of China.

"Even though China doesn't recognize denominational structure internally, the fact they allowed a delegation to attend Session shows they are aware of the global scope of the Adventist Church," Hsu said.

Maintaining "cordial relationships" and constructive dialogue with other denominations' leaders facilitates mutual understanding among faith groups, leaders from the church's Public Affairs and Religious Liberty department said at this week's meeting.

The China Christian Council delegation included Xuebin Shen, vice chairperson of the organization's National Committee; Jun Wang, chairperson of its Shaanxi chapter; Zhiming Zhu, vice president of the Wuxi Christian Council; and Meiying Shi, secretary of the Overseas Relations department of the China Christian Council.

The delegation asked how Adventists relate to other denominations, and whether Adventist-run seminaries enroll non-Adventist students. Shen was impressed with the church's commitment to healthy living, adding that he might try a vegetarian diet for a year, Hsu said.

During the meeting, Wilson accepted an invitation to meet with China Christian Council officials in China.
.
Source: Adventist News Network
.
Source
..

Sunday, May 16, 2010

Adventist publisher ousts executives


By Julia Duin

Four executives employed by the publishing arm of the Seventh-day Adventist Church were sacked recently at the organization's Hagerstown, Md., headquarters because of "mounting financial losses," denominational officials said.

The Maryland-based denomination, which has 16 million members worldwide in 203 countries including 1 million in North America, forced the resignations of top officials for the Review and Herald Publishing Association (RHPA) - a sign of the greater weakness in the religious publishing industry.

RHPA President Robert S. Smith, who had been 10 years in the position, was relieved of his duties after an April 29 board meeting. Vice President of Finance Hepsiba S. Singh will retire July 1. Mario P. Martinelli, vice president for books and subscription literature, and Richard A. Tooley, vice president for periodicals, were also let go.

Mark B. Thomas, vice president for graphics, was named interim president.

Revenues for the publisher have been flat for the past decade, according to denominational archives that show an annual revenues at $26 million in 2000 with a rise in sales to $36 million in 2008. Annual sales volume then dropped back down to its current level of $28 million.

Gerry Karst, vice chairman of the 39-member board, said two of the four employees let go were past retirement age.

"We'd come to a point where we needed to reorganize this institution," he said. "It's been operating for 161 years ... and the way people access information these days has changed, but our business model has remained the same."

The resignations, which were first reported in the Adventist Review, appear to follow other belt-tightening moves within the denomination. On April 22, the board of Adventist Risk Management, the church's insurance arm, voted to demote many of its managers to client services and relocate most of its employees from Riverside, Calif., to the denomination's Silver Spring, Md., headquarters.

"We needed some new blood and new thinking," Mr. Karst said of the RHPA. "The book market has become extremely tight and when you're a religious publisher, the market is narrower. That is why something had to change."

The Review and Herald Publishing Association were founded in 1849 to serve several "adventist" movements in upstate New York whose adherents believed that Christ would return to Earth in 1844. Eventually these movements merged to form the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Battle Creek, Mich. in 1863.

Its publishing house puts out a stream of books and magazines, including Message, the country's oldest religious journal for black Americans.

But the Christian book publishing industry, in which a slight sales increase in March was the first positive change in net sales in more than a year, has been hurting, according to the Evangelical Christian Publishing Association.

Andy Butcher, editor of Christian Retailing magazine in Lake Mary, Fla., also called the past two years difficult.

"It's been hard in every part of the book world and Christian publishing has been no exception," he said, noting there is no current Christian best-seller to bring buyers into stores.

.

Note: Bolds and Highlights added.
.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

A New Ecumenical Wind

A New Ecumenical Wind
Will the Global Christian Forum unite the churches?

By William G. Johnsson

A new wind is blowing across the Christian landscape, one with the potential to transform the ecumenical movement. How should Seventh-day Adventists, with our keen interest in end-time developments, relate to it?

November 6-9, 2007, some 250 Christian leaders from more than 70 nations came together in Limuru, Kenya. The extremely diverse group, which gathered under the rubric of the Global Christian Forum (GCF), was a meeting unlike any other in modern times. For the first time Pentecostals and Evangelicals sat down with Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, and representatives of the African Instituted Churches. Many of those present called the meeting historic; certainly it was unprecedented.

The gathering at Limuru took place on the eve of the sixtieth anniversary of the World Council of Churches (WCC). Major changes have occurred in the Christian world since 1948, when the WCC was formed in high hopes of uniting Christians:



UNITED IN PRAYER: Vibrant worship services, as well as personal interaction, were featured prominently in the meeting of the Global Christian Forum in Limuru, Kenya.♦


The center of gravity has moved south. No longer do Europe and the United States set the pace. Christianity is growing rapidly in Africa and Asia, but is stagnant in its old “home base.” There are now about four times more Christians in the global South than in the North (or “West”). “Southern” missionaries now outnumber their traditional Western counterparts.

Beyond the numbers, however, we should note an even more important change. “Southern” Christianity is much more conservative than that of the “mainline” churches that constitute the bulk of the WCC. It assigns greater authority to the Scriptures; it has a holistic understanding of the natural and supernatural worlds; and it gives the Holy Spirit a much more prominent role in doctrine and experience.

♦ The Evangelical movement, cutting across denominational lines, has become a global force. Evangelicals, regardless of their parent church home, are united in belief in the reliability of the Bible, in the atoning work of Christ by His death on the cross, in the need for conversion and evangelism, and in the second coming of Christ. The World Evangelical Alliance counts some 420 million Christians in its fellowship.

♦ Growing even more rapidly are the Pentecostals. In its modern manifestation the movement began as a marginalized fringe Christian phenomenon in Los Angeles in 1904. Primarily a revival movement appealing to the poor, and disdained by society, Pentecostalism has spread globally. It has no central structure or organization; rather, it centers in the congregation, emphasizing the personal experience of the Holy Spirit. Because a clear definition of what constitutes a Pentecostal is hard to come by, estimates of the strength of the worldwide movement vary widely; generally, however, observers agree that globally Pentecostals-Charismatics number more than 500 million.

♦ On the continent of Africa Christianity has exploded. Many new, indigenous churches have arisen around charismatic figures. Some of these churches, known generally as African Instituted Churches, have congregations beyond their national boundaries and even in Europe and America. Offering a religion of celebration, they use symbols, music, and dance reflective of African culture. Probably about 100 million Christians belong to the African Instituted Churches.

These major changes largely bypassed the WCC. Evangelicals have been disenchanted by the sharp turn toward social and political action that the WCC took at its world assembly in 1968 at Uppsala, Sweden. Pentecostals, initially scorned by the mainline churches, harbor hostility toward the ecumenical movement represented by the WCC. And the new African churches and the WCC generally find little in common.


Major changes have occurred in the Christian world since 1948, when the World Council of Churches was formed.

Today, 60 years after its founding, the WCC is looking for a sense of direction. Its budget and staff have been drastically reduced from 20 years ago. It has failed to attract groups representing large numbers of Christians. And, in spite of earnest efforts, its member churches have not been able to achieve the basic step of accepting one another at the Lord’s table.

Out of this background the concept of the Global Christian Forum was conceived in 1998. Hubert van Beek, who served many years with the WCC, spent the following nine years as a retired planner and organizer of the event that eventually took place last November at Limuru. Van Beck was assisted by an essentially volunteer steering committee drawn from several traditions. Mel Robeck, professor of church history at Fuller Seminary in California, and a Pentecostal, played a key role in persuading many Pentecostal leaders to attend the GCF.

The ideas of the GCF were first tested in regional meetings in various parts of the world. The steering committee concluded that the only way for Pentecostals to feel comfortable enough to participate would be to ensure that they and Evangelicals comprised at least 50 percent of all those present. This is indeed what happened at Limuru. Pentecostals formed the largest single group and played a major role in plenary sessions and discussion groups. Both of the major papers presented at the plenaries came from Pentecostal scholars.

The GCF met for four days at Limuru, 19 kilometers (11.8 miles) from Nairobi, at a resort center owned by the National Council of Churches of Kenya. The WCC and its partners put up most of the funding for the event. Many of those who came had their expenses paid by the organizers. Three Adventists attended: John Graz, Public Affairs and Religious Liberty director at the General Conference; John Kakembo, Ministerial director of the East Central Africa Division, which has its headquarters in Nairobi; and I.

The stated purpose of the GCF was to “create an open space wherein representatives from a broad range of Christian churches and interchurch organizations, which confess the triune God and Jesus Christ as perfect in His divinity and humanity, can gather to foster mutual respect, to explore and address together common challenges.” Unlike past ecumenical gatherings I have attended, at the GCF the affective (emotional) element played a significant part. Worship services, except for the one conducted by the Orthodox, were lively. Africans brought a distinctive flavor to the gathering.

For many the high point came on the first day. All attendees joined in preassigned groups of 30 and spent, person by person, about 15 minutes each relating in personal testimony their journey with Jesus Christ. The common elements of divine calling and intervention, regardless of the tradition, were powerful and moving. In these groups the denominational barriers came down; the remaining days built on the goodwill that had been established.



BROAD REPRESENTATION: Representatives to the Global Christian Forum included delegates from the Salvation Army, Assemblies of God, Orthodox Church in America, World Council of Churches, Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and Conference of Christian Communicators.


The GCF spent its final day and a half evaluating what had transpired and trying to ascertain the form and direction it should take. Attendees expressed appreciation for the event, which they viewed as a breakthrough, and urged that structures be kept to a minimum, the GCF avoid becoming a new organization, the process continue at regional and local levels, and the committee that planned the GCF be reconstituted and enlarged to guide the process. The unfolding future will determine whether another global meeting should be arranged.

Most of those who came to Limuru left on a high note. They felt they had been a part of something special, perhaps historic. Will the GCF subsequently be seen as the turning point when the WCC and the old ecumenism faded away, and a new and unpredictable ecumenism was born? Only time will tell.

How Adventists relate to these winds of change will call for alertness and careful thought. We have never been a member of the WCC and have kept at a distance the ecumenism that organization espouses. For us, a sense of divinely ordained mission to the entire world cannot be weakened or compromised by organic linking with other Christian bodies. We do not take upon ourselves the role of judge: we simply focus on our mission and leave others to answer to the Lord for their calling.

Yes, we too desire the unity of believers for which our Lord prayed before He went to the cross. But unity on what basis? And at what price? For us, Christian unity can come only from shared beliefs based on the Bible.

Further, our understanding of history and prophecy makes us wary of Christian coalitions. Too often the result has been coercion of conscience, and Revelation 13 points to another such development just before Christ returns.

We applaud men and women of goodwill everywhere. For some 80 years the Working Policy of our church has stated: “We recognize those agencies that lift up Christ before men as a part of the divine plan for evangelization of the world, and we hold in high esteem Christian men and women in other communions who are engaged in winning souls to Christ” (p. 110). We enter into theological conversations with other churches, seeking to understand and to be understood. Where possible, we make common cause in endeavors such as religious liberty and aid to the needy, just as Ellen White in her day joined with other Christian bodies in fighting the alcohol traffic.

We gladly worship with other Christians, praying with and for them, including their ministers. And here Adventists are way out in front of the churches of the WCC: we open the Lord’s table to all who present themselves, regardless of denomination. That is the sort of ecumenism—and only that—in which we feel free to participate.

William G. Johnsson is assistant to the president for interfaith relations for the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
.

Source: http://adventistworld.org/article.php?id=288
.

Monday, April 12, 2010

Adventist Church plans expanded partnership with World Health Organization

Leaders approve involvement in project to curb maternal, infant mortality in rural communities

7 Apr 2010, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
Elizabeth Lechleitner/ANN

Seventh-day Adventist Church officials voted yesterday to accept a proposal from the World Health Organization (WHO) that seeks the denomination's partnership with the United Nations' agency in a program to reduce maternal and infant mortality.

The approval paves the way for expanding the church's fledgling alliance with the WHO in helping to implement public health initiatives.




Church Health Ministries Director Allan Handysides outlines a World Health Organization (WHO) proposal soliciting the Adventist Church's efforts to reduce infant and maternal mortality worldwide. The partnership, approved April 6 by church leadership, broadens the scope of the church's collaboration with the WHO. [photo: Rajmund Dabrowski/ANN]


Church administrative and health leaders first explored a collaboration with the WHO last summer during a health conference in Geneva. In October, they released a statement positioning the denomination to better improve global health through partnerships with allied health organizations, such as the WHO.

The WHO proposal discussed yesterday during Spring Meeting at world church headquarters requests that selected Adventist-run schools of nursing that teach midwifery or obstetrics serve as "laboratories of change." There, the WHO, Health Ministries and church-run Loma Linda School of Nursing in Loma Linda, California, will concentrate resources to graduate Highly Skilled Birth Attendants, said Allan Handysides, director of the world church's department of Health Ministries.

An increase in birth attendants is expected to curb the number of maternal deaths per births in many African and Asian countries, which stands at 600 per 100,000, compared to 16 per 100,000 in Western countries, Handysides said. The ratio represents an estimated 3 million preventable maternal deaths per year, he said.

"I want to stress to you that through this partnership, the image and reputation of the Adventist church may be held up to the scrutiny of the WHO," Handysides told the delegates. He urged them not only to approve the proposal, but also to commit to "100 percent participation" and "keen oversight" by all levels of church administration in implementing the project, particularly in church regions where the effort is concentrated.

Patricia Jones, associate Health Ministries director for Nursing, reiterated Handysides' call for full involvement. Jones, also a professor of Nursing at the Loma Linda School of Nursing, said if problems in implementation arise, the goal of the partnership -- fewer infant and maternal deaths -- would suffer most.

Delegates seemed largely in favor of the partnership, one calling it a "vote of confidence" in the work of the church's Health Ministries department. However, they asked that potential downsides to the partnership be fully analyzed before the church moves forward.

"I am reluctant to enter this partnership -- even though the benefits may be tremendous -- without a thorough plan to avoid any risks that may arise," said Paul Ratsara, president of the church's Southern Africa-Indian Ocean region.

While potential risks cannot be eliminated, "thorough work has and will yet be done" to "minimize" them, said Peter Landless, associate Health Ministries director. Landless called for a "careful, measured pace" as the church proceeds with the partnership, which, he added "may serve as a very needed injection of new life into some of our health institutions."

The partnership is expected to upgrade the quality of instruction and increase the number of instructors at the selected nursing schools. Also anticipated is a spike in enrollment, due to students contracted by the government to return to their rural communities, where infant and maternal mortality is the highest, Handysides said.

Developing an extensive network of such "laboratories of change" is expected to cost an estimated $5 million, he said.

"We were at first apprehensive about this because the cost of such a project would certainly be beyond our capabilities," Handysides said. However, the WHO has since said they are "very willing" to secure funding for the initiative, he added.

The Adventist Church "should embrace this opportunity to have a public expression of our healing and serving values as a global organization," said Lowell Cooper, a world church vice president and Loma Linda University's board chair.

Cooper is also a member of the church's administrative committee, which delegates agreed will guide the partnership's progress during its five-year duration.

While "ambitious," the partnership is admittedly short-term and thus an "experiment," Handysides said, adding that ideally it will give the WHO a positive impression of what a relationship with a denomination can achieve.

"This may be a possible model for future partnerships," Adventist world church president Jan Paulsen said following the vote.
.
.
Source: Adventist News Network
.
Source: http://news.adventist.org/2010/04/adventist-church-pla.html
.
P.S. Bolds and Highlights added.
.

Tuesday, March 02, 2010

The United States of Corporate America: From Democracy to Plutocracy


Friday, January 22, 2010

The United States of Corporate America: From Democracy to Plutocracy

"The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
Plato, ancient Greek philosopher


...“The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.”
Alex Carey, Australian social scientist


“The most effective way to restrict democracy is to transfer decision-making from the public arena to unaccountable institutions: kings and princes, priestly castes, military juntas, party dictatorships, or modern corporations.”
Noam Chomsky, M.I.T. emeritus Professor of Linguistics


On Tuesday, January 19 (2010), the Obama administration got a kick in the pants from the Massachusetts voters when they filled former Senator Ted Kennedy's seat by electing a conservative Republican candidate. The essence of their message was: stop dithering and start governing; stop trying to satisfy the bankers and please the anonymous editors of Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, and start caring for the ordinary people.

Two days later, President Barack Obama seemed to have understood the people's message when he announced a “Volcker rule” that will forbid large banks from owning hedge funds that make money by placing large bets against their own clients, using information that these same clients gave them. It was about time. Such a policy should have been announced months ago, if not years ago.

On the same day, however, a nonelected body, the U.S. Supreme Court, threw a different challenge to the Obama administration. Indeed, on Thursday January 21 (2010), a Republican-appointed majority on the U.S. Supreme Court took it upon itself to profoundly change the U.S. Constitution and American democracy. Indeed, in what can be labeled a most reactionary decision, the Roberts U.S. Supreme Court, ruled that legal entities, such as corporations and labor unions, have the same purely personal rights to free speech as living individuals. Indeed, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.

The only problem with such a wide interpretation of the U.S. Bills of Rights (N.B.: The first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights) is that this runs contrary to its letter and its spirit, since it clearly states later on that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the citizenry or States.” The words “people” and “citizenry” clearly refer here to living human beings, not to legal or artificial entities such as business corporations, labor unions, financial organizations or political lobbies.

Such entities, for example, cannot vote in an election. Indeed, laws governing voting rights in the United States clearly establish that only “Adult citizens of the United States who are residents of one of the 50 states have the right to participate fully in the political system of the United States”. No mention is made of corporations or other legal entities.

However, with its January 21 (2010) decision, the majority on the Roberts U.S. Supreme Court is saying in effect that even if artificial entities cannot vote in an election, they can spend as much money as they like to influence the outcome of an election. Money is speech for them, and the more a legal entity has of it, the more it has a right to become powerful politically and control the political agenda.

In fact, what Chief Justice Roberts and his conservative Supreme Court majority have done is to overcome a century-old democratic tradition in the United States in granting a constitutional right to business corporations and to banks, (because they are really the ones with a lot of money), to use their enormous resources to not only participate in debates about public issues, but also, and above all, to de facto dictate the election of candidates of their choice to public office.

That's plutocracy, not democracy!

Plutocracy is defined as a political system characterized by “the rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth.” Democracy, on the other hand, is defined as a political system where political power belongs to the people. This means “a political government either carried out directly by the people (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (representative democracy). The terms "the power to the people" are derived from the words "people" and "power" in Greek.

This fundamental idea of democracy was well summarized by President Abraham Lincoln, in his 1863 Gettysburg Address, when he said that it is “a government of the people, by the people and for the people.” This is a definition that is based on the basic democratic principle of equality among human beings.

But now, the Roberts Court's decision must have made President Lincoln turn in his grave, because that decision, in effect, transfers political power from the living “people” to artificial corporate entities, with tons of money to spend. If Congress does not act quickly to reverse this decision, legal entities will be able to spend freely in the media to support or oppose political candidates for president and Congress, and this, as far as the last moment of a political campaign. This is quite something!

By a stroke of the pen, the Roberts Court has thus abolished the laws governing American electoral financing and removed limits to how much special money interests can spend to have the elected officials they want. The government they want will largely be “a government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.” Truly amazing!

To reflect the new political philosophy of the five-member majority of the Roberts Court, the Preambule of the U.S. Constitution that says “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...” should, maybe, more appropriately be changed for “We, the business corporations of America...”

It is that much more ironic that the word “corporation” appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or in the Bill of Rights. It is scarcely conceivable that the drafters of the Constitution had anything resembling corporate entities in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights. But the Roberts Court majority does not seem to agree with Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Mason...etc. Because of their decision, the five conservative members of the U. S. Supreme Court of today have become the new Fathers of the U. S. Constitution.

For nearly a century, it has been assumed that the U.S. Bill of Rights protected persons, not corporations. Even if sometimes the courts have extended the rights of the 14th Amendment banning the deprivation of property without due process or equal protection of the law to the property of corporations, it was never thought that the purely personal rights of the first Amendment of the Bill of Rights applied to corporate entities as well as to human beings. This is understandable. Business corporations are created through legislation that gives them potentially perpetual life and limited liability to enhance their efficiency as economic entities. While such characteristics can be beneficial in the economic sphere, they represent special dangers in the political sphere. That is the rationale for not extending constitutional rights to purely legal entities.

But now, the five-member majority of the Roberts Court have said that such legalized artificial entities have the same constitutionally protected rights to engage in political activities as living individuals.

In conclusion, let us reiterate that in a democracy—and as it is clearly established also in the U.S. Bill of Rights and in all democratic constitutions—the citizens are the only legitimate source of law. It follows inexorably that corporations, not being citizens, cannot be legitimate political actors. Chief Justice Roberts and his conservative Supreme Court majority have thus badly erred in their anti-democratic judgment.

Their judgment is clearly revolutionary or, more precisely, counter-revolutionary.


Rodrigue Tremblay
[http://www.thenewamericanempire.com/author.htm] is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com. He is the author of the coming book "The Code for Global Ethics" at: http://www.TheCodeForGlobalEthics.com/

You may reserve a copy of the book on Amazon


*****The French version of the book is now available. See:

http://www.lecodepouruneethiqueglobale.com/

or on Amazon Canada

Register to be alerted when the English version is available by sending the word “Code” to bigpictureworld@yahoo.com

Please visit the book site at:

http://www.TheCodeForGlobalEthics.com/


Posted, Friday, January 22, 2010, at 5:30 am
.