Thursday, December 24, 2009

Holy See declares unique copyright on Papal figure


Vatican City, Dec 19, 2009 / 12:23 pm (CNA).- The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of the Pope on Saturday morning. The statement seeks to establish and safeguard the name, image and any symbols of the Pope as being expressly for official use of the Holy See unless otherwise authorized.

The statement cited a "great increase of affection and esteem for the person of the Holy Father" in recent years as contributing to a desire to use the Pontiff's name for all manner of educational and cultural institutions, civic groups and foundations.

Due to this demand, the Vatican has felt it necessary to declare that "it alone has the right to ensure the respect due to the Successors of Peter, and therefore, to protect the figure and personal identity of the Pope from the unauthorized use of his name and/or the papal coat of arms for ends and activities which have little or nothing to do with the Catholic Church."


The declaration alludes to attempts to use ecclesiastical or pontifical symbols and logos to "attribute credibility and authority to initiatives" as another reason to establish their “copyright” on the Holy Father's name, picture and coat of arms.

"Consequently, the use of anything referring directly to the person or office of the Supreme Pontiff... and/or the use of the title 'Pontifical,' must receive previous and express authorization from the Holy See," concluded the message released to the press.

.
.

Blame the Bishops

AIM Column By Cliff Kincaid December 23, 2009


The only real chance of defeating the health care legislation came when the bill was lacking a majority of votes for passage in the House.

A lot is being said and written about why national health care legislation is becoming a reality. The simple fact, available for all to see, is that the U.S. Catholic Bishops ensured passage of the bill in the House, enabling the Senate to move forward with its version.

Like "progressive" strategist Robert B. Creamer, the Bishops believe that health care is a right to be guaranteed by government. This position has driven the debate and has rarely been challenged by Republicans. The debate over abortion has been mostly a diversion. Perhaps it has been planned that way

As we were the first to disclose, Creamer, an ex-con and husband of Rep. Jan Schakowsky, emphasized using "the faith community" to mobilize support for universal health care by highlighting the morality of providing medical care to people in need. His book, Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win, emphasized that "We must create a national consensus that health care is a right, not a commodity; and that government must guarantee that right."
Now compare this to what the Bishops have said.

"Our approach to health care is shaped by a simple but fundamental principle: 'Every person has a right to adequate health care,'" they say. They go on, "For three quarters of a century, the Catholic bishops of the United States have called for national action to assure decent health care for all Americans. We seek to bring a moral perspective in an intensely political debate; we offer an ethical framework in an arena dominated by powerful economic interests."

Reform, the Bishops said, would "require concerted action by federal and other levels of government and by the diverse providers and consumers of health care. We believe government, an instrument of our common purpose called to pursue the common good, has an essential role to play in assuring that the rights of all people to adequate health care are respected."

Also this: "For three quarters of a century, the Catholic bishops of the United States have called for national action to assure decent health care for all Americans."

The only real chance of defeating the health care legislation came when the bill was lacking a majority of votes for passage in the House. That's when the first deal was made. This was the deal that made all other deals possible. Acting at the behest of Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and the Catholic Bishops, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed to a vote on the pro-life amendment introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak. It passed and then the bill itself was approved.
But why did Republicans vote for the Stupak amendment if they opposed the basic premise of the bill? House Republican Leader Rep. John Boehner got his marching orders as well. He was told by Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, that the Republicans shouldn't scuttle the Stupak amendment.

The Senate then proceeded to pass its own version of the legislation, without the Stupak language. Predictably, Stupak is complaining about that. But he-and the Democrats and Republicans who voted for his amendment-only have themselves to blame. At least five lobbyists for the Bishops worked with Pelosi and Stupak on the deal that is now also predictably falling apart. Clearly, the pro-life deal was a ploy designed to keep the legislation alive.

It has become apparent to some observers that the Bishops want the legislation to pass, with or without abortion language, because of its perceived impact on 600 Catholic hospitals. As they say in their own document, "Catholic dioceses, parishes, schools, agencies, and hospitals are major purchasers of insurance and health care. The rapidly escalating costs of coverage are impacting almost every diocese, agency, parish, and school."

In other words, the Bishops see national health care legislation as a way to reduce their own costs. In addition, by expanding federally-subsidized health care to as many as 30 million people, many of whom might normally depend on Catholic hospitals for inexpensive or free care, the Catholic Bishops could save even more money.

Andrew P. Napolitano, the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel, has written a very revealing article about what has been missing in the debate over health care. He writes, "In the continually harsh public discourse over the President's proposals for federally-managed healthcare, the Big Government progressives in both the Democratic and the Republican parties have been trying to trick us. These folks, who really want the government to care for us from cradle to grave, have been promoting the idea that health care is a right. In promoting that false premise, they have succeeded in moving the debate from WHETHER the feds should micro-manage health care to HOW the feds should micro-manage health care. This is a false premise, and we should reject it. Health care is not a right; it is a good, like food, like shelter, and like clothing."

Rights come from God, not government, Napolitano points out.

It would have been nice if it had been pointed out on Fox News and elsewhere that the Catholic Bishops who claim to be offering a "moral perspective" on this controversy have bought into the false premise. But they didn't believe it to be false, and that is the critical point.

In short, the Catholic Bishops have emerged as a major "progressive" force in the United States, determined to saddle the country with a socialized medicine scheme. The disagreements over abortion among the "Big Government progressives" should not distract our attention from this basic fact. The Bishops also favor "climate change" legislation and amnesty for illegal aliens.

In addition to the lobbyists who were working on Capitol Hill, the bishops have a staff of 350 in Washington, D.C. and operate on a budget that was estimated back in 2002 at $131 million a year. By contrast, the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress operates on about $48 million a year.

Ironically, we have also discovered that Soros, an atheist, is putting big money into various Catholic organizations, such as Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. Not surprisingly, it is backing the health care legislation.

"Sadly, the bishops have misunderstood the entire process, and now we will all pay," one conservative Catholic blogger points out. "They thought they could influence our lawmakers to provide us a 'clean' government takeover of the nation's health care system, 'clean' in the sense they hoped this 'reform' would include strong conscience protections while defunding abortion, without objecting to the basic premise of unprecedented government growth."

It is interesting and newsworthy that, as the nation prepares to celebrate Christmas, we are witnesses to the passage of legislation promoted in part by elements of the "faith community" who have put most of their faith in the federal government and its mammon.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at cliff.kincaid@aim.org
.
.

Be Prepared For The Worst: Breaking Point 2010 – Top Trends

By Gerald Celente
12-16-9


KINGSTON, NY – The first decade of the 21st century is going out the way it came in with a bust and a bang.

The Great Recession is not over. There is no recovery. It’s a cover up. Expect another wave of terrorism. Possibly of 9/11 magnitude.

As well as challenges, also expect profitable and transformational social, health, environmental, entertainment, cultural, business and consumer trends to emerge in 2010.

· The Crash of 2010: The Bailout Bubble is about to burst. Be prepared for the onset of the Greatest Depression.

· Depression Uplift: The pursuit of elegance and affordable sophistication will raise spirits and profits.

· Terrorism 2010: Years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq ­ and now Pakistan ­ have intensified anti-American sentiment. 2010 will be the year of the lone-wolf, self-radicalized gunman.

· Neo-Survivalism: A new breed of survivalist is devising ingenious stratagems to beat the crumbling system. And, they’re not all heading for the hills with AK-47’s and pork & beans.

· Not Welcome Here: Fueled by fear and resentment, a global anti-immigration trend will gather force and serve as a major plank in building a new political party in the US.

· TB or Not TB: With two-thirds of Americans Too Big (TB) for their own good (and everyone else’s), 2010 will mark the outbreak of a “War on Fat,” providing a ton of business opportunities.

· Mothers of Invention: Taking off with the speed of the Internet revolution, “Technology for the Poor” will be a major trend in 2010, providing products and services for newly downscaled Western consumers and impoverished consumers everywhere.

· Not Made In China: A “Buy Local,” “My Country First” protectionist backlash will deliver a big “No” to unrestrained globalism and open solid niches for local and domestic manufacturers.

· The Next Big Thing: Just as the traditional print media (newspapers/magazines) were scooped by Internet competition, so too will new communication technologies herald the end of the TV networks as we know them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR-z1i2ihechttp://



The Trends Research Institute has a 30-year unparalleled track record of accurate forecasts. (http://enews.trendsresearch.com/m/4d9GdxbPVe9zlYQN8uhpKDnqQmwnYit8Q2mtbrvjVIUx_BMKrg) Does your audience really want to listen to “experts” who tell them what they hope to hear, or listen to Gerald Celente who tells it straight and provides practical strategies?

To schedule an interview with Trends Research Institute Director, Gerald Celente, please contact: Bibi Farber, Media Relations at 845.331.3500 Ext. 1 (Bibifarber@trendsresearch.com)

© Trends Research Institute MMIX

The Trends Research Institute P.O. Box 3476 Kingston, NY 12402

Source: http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/be-prepared-for-the-worst-breaking-point-2010-top-trends/
..

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Adventists Played Important Role in Obama Inaugural Events



Washington D.C./USA, 25.01.2009 / APD

Seventh-day Adventist Christians played important, visible roles in the inaugural festivities and early celebrations for President Barack Hussein Obama, the first African-American elected as chief executive of the United States of America.

Moments after President Obama’s inaugural address, Seventh-day Adventist pastor and U.S. Senate Chaplain Barry C. Black gave the invocation at the inaugural luncheon held in the Capitol’s Statuary Hall on January 20. The next morning, Wintley Phipps, a noted soloist and Seventh-day Adventist pastor, sang at the Inaugural Prayer Service at Washington National Cathedral.

U.S. Senate Chaplain Barry C. Black Black’s two-minute, 148-word prayer was broadcast live. "Lord of all nations, Whose Kingdom is above all earthly kingdom, and Who judges all lesser sovereignties," Black began, "look with favour upon President Barack Obama, Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, and members of the Cabinet. Empower them with the wisdom, courage and strength needed for our times. And protect them from any moral arrogance that obstructs the making of a world of justice, peace and righteousness."

He continued, "Infuse them with a passion to act in ways pleasing to You. Lord, preserve their families in health and strength by Your mercy and power and may they find Your grace sufficient for every need. We ask also that You would shower Your blessings upon the American people. Give us the wisdom to support our new President with our prayers, patience, and perseverance."

Black concluded, "Bless now this luncheon and the nourishment we receive from Your bounty. We pray in Your Sovereign name, Amen."

Before the ceremonies, Black noted that an inaugural prayer isn't something to take a red pen to, he said. Unlike speeches, prayers are not "another act in the drama," said Black, former chief of chaplains for the U.S. Navy and a retired Naval Rear Admiral. Rather, he said, prayers ought to be reflective and deeply sincere. "I would be very concerned if someone or some committee was standing by to scrutinize what someone had passionately felt compelled to say to God on behalf of the people for a particular occasion," Black said.

Black said those on Capitol Hill have heard him pray enough -- he opens every session of the Senate with a prayer -- to be assured he won't say anything "out in left field."

Black said some might argue that prayer during state events, such as inaugurations, is little more than a formality or tradition -- George Washington initiated the first such prayer after he was sworn in by a chaplain who used the Book of Common Prayer. Others have gone so far as to claim that an inaugural prayer is unconstitutional and violates the separation of church and state.

However, Black said the country's need for prayer is as crucial as ever. "The Framers, despite their commitment to keep church and state separate, recognized the need for a spiritual dimension of government." Black's position itself was established in 1789, at the suggestion of Framers such as Benjamin Franklin, who Black said is credited with saying that it was "highly unlikely" for a nation to rise without God's assistance if a "sparrow cannot fall without [His] notice."

Black noted as many as 35 of the country's 100 senators -- from both sides of the aisle -- regularly attend weekly prayer breakfasts and Bible studies. Among those who attended, when they were each Senators, were Obama and Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, both of whom Black said are "very spiritual individuals."

Black said he's had the opportunity to interact on a regular basis with Obama, whom he considers a friend. The then-Senator from Illinois provided an endorsement printed on the back cover of Black's 2006 book, From the Hood to the Hill.

The chaplain, whose office overlooks the National Mall, said the "awe-inspiring" view contributes to the "sense of wonder" he experiences each time he enters the nation's Capitol.

"I have the opportunity to interact with some of the brightest people I know of, and they're interested in my opinions on the ethical dimensions of the issues they're debating in the chamber. That privilege -- that responsibility -- is sobering, and very, very exciting," Black said.
Wintley Phipps, Pastor and Solist Another Seventh-day Adventist who was featured during the early hours of the Obama administration was Wintley Phipps, a soloist at past inaugurals who sang "Amazing Grace" at the Washington National Cathedral, site of the Presidential Inaugural Prayer Service on January 21. Phipps was the only soloist.

"What was particularly interesting was that the Secretary of State, Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton and [former] President Bill Clinton were present," Phipps told Adventist Review in a telephone interview. "A number of members of the Cabinet and Sen. John McCain [President Obama’s 2008 rival] and Sen. Joe Lieberman were also there. It was a very powerful service. It’s an awesome place to sing at."

Phipps, whose U.S. Dream Academy works with children who need help succeeding in challenging environments, also reflected on what the new President will mean to a particular segment of American society.

"We have no idea of the impact that President Obama’s ascendency is going to have on the hearts and in the minds of young African-American children. It is beyond anything we can really calculate or imagine," he said.


Source: http://www.stanet.ch/apd/news/2057.html

P.S.

I. Bary Black why did you leave Jesus' name out of your PRAYER?

And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. .....John 14:13

II. Chaplain B. Black: Alumni of Salve Regina University in Newport - Rhode Island?

14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

16And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

17Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

18And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

II Corinthians 6:14-18.
.

What Kind Of Decade Was It?

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbk3x6_2000s-decade-recap-politics_newshttp://

Despite Y2K panic at the beginning of the decade, the first ten years of the new millennium proved that our fellow humans are much more dangerous than malfunctioning machines. Unprecedented terrorist attacks on American soil, followed by subsequent attacks around the world punctuated the 2000s. Climate change and unparalleled natural disasters killed hundreds of thousands. Not to mention the global economic meltdown. To finish it off, the world was scared to death by the swine flu pandemic – the perfect end to a dreadful decade. In this video, http://www.WatchMojo.com reviews these and more milestones from the first decade of the new millennium.

.

2nd Irish bishop quitting over Dublin abuse report


Bishop Donal Murray speaks in St John's Cathedral in Limerick, Ireland, Thursday Dec. 17, 2009, after resigning as as Bishop of Limerick. Pope Benedict XVI accepted the resignation of Murray, who was heavily criticized in an Irish investigation of clergy sex abuse of children and a church hierarchy cover-up, the Vatican said Thursday. The one-line announcement that Monsignor Donal Murray had resigned did not mention the scandal. It said, however, that Murray resigned under a Canon Law provision that allows bishops, younger than the mandatory retirement age of 75, to step down when they become "unsuited" to continue in the post.(AP Photo/pa)


By SHAWN POGATCHNIK (AP) – 3 hours ago

DUBLIN — A second Roman Catholic bishop in Ireland announced Wednesday he will resign in the wake of a damning investigation into decades of church cover-up of child abuse in the Dublin archdiocese.

Bishop Jim Moriarty revealed his decision to priests and other church officials in his diocese of Kildare and Leithlin, southwest of Dublin. Church officials said Moriarty planned to travel soon to Rome to tender his resignation directly to Pope Benedict XVI, who has sole power to hire and fire bishops.

Moriarty said he accepted the investigators' finding that he failed to react properly when told about abuse cases, particularly of one priest convicted of molesting girls in 1997. But he insisted that his own inaction reflected his colleagues' poor communication and secrecy.

"It does not serve the truth to overstate my responsibility and authority within the archdiocese. Nor does it serve the truth to overlook the fact that the system of management and communications was seriously flawed," Moriarty said in a prepared statement.

"However, with the benefit of hindsight, I accept that, from the time I became an auxiliary bishop, I should have challenged the prevailing culture."

Last week Bishop Donal Murray of Limerick resigned, becoming the first high-profile casualty of a government-ordered probe into the church's failure to tell authorities about more than 170 suspected child abusers in the Dublin priesthood.

That 720-page report, published Nov. 26, examined the cases of 46 pedophile priests in detail. It found that church leaders in Dublin chronically shielded these priests from the law for decades until 1995, when growing public anger over the practice forced the church to begin handing its files on some cases to police.

Abuse victims welcomed Wednesday's resignation announcement — but emphasized that they believe three other serving bishops named in the report must quit too.

"It is immensely distressing and insulting to survivors of sexual abuse to be forced to listen as one bishop after another justifies his position and attempts to hold on to power until he is shamed into resigning," said Maeve Lewis, director of an abuse-victims support group called One in Four.

"The bishops do not seem to understand the depravity of the culture that prevailed, and the horror inflicted on countless children," she said. "Ultimately, the resignations of all the auxiliary bishops named in the report are inevitable."

Moriarty, who served as a Dublin auxiliary bishop from 1991 to 2002, initially insisted he'd done nothing wrong. "I do not consider that there are any grounds there upon which I should resign from office," he said Dec. 10.

But Moriarty changed that line after senior church figures met Benedict in Rome that same day, and Murray announced his resignation.

The report found Moriarty guilty of inaction in the face of abuse complaints, particularly involving the Rev. Paul McGennis.

The investigators' search of Dublin church records discovered that the church began keeping internal records of McGennis' pedophilia as early as 1960, when he was caught taking pictures of naked girls.

The report found that Moriarty received renewed abuse reports against McGennis in 1993 but did nothing. McGennis was convicted in 1997 of abusing two girls and served half of an 18-month prison sentence.

The investigators determined that church leaders, including Moriarty, made no attempt to check its own past files on McGennis. "Bishop Moriarty pointed out to the commission that he did not have access to the archives, but he could have asked the archbishop to conduct a search," the report said.

Moriarty is 73, two years short of the church's mandatory retirement age. Five other past Dublin bishops identified in the report have already retired, while several others are dead.

On the Net:
Dublin Archdiocese report,: http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB09000504

.

Health Care Reform Debacle


12/23/2009



Hoppy's Commentary For Wednesday
Talkline Host Hoppy Kercheval


Politicians love to reference history to bolster arguments. We are told that the health-reform bill is “landmark” legislation on par with Social Security and Medicare, thus glibly establishing the alleged historical significance.

But history—when it’s not being used as a convenient prop—can serve more precisely as a cautionary tale.

The Social Security Act of 1935 was all of 38 pages, including three pages for titles. It was pretty straight forward; the government would begin collecting a tax from employees and employers then pay benefits to retirees, dependent children, “cripple” children and the blind.

The money paid into the system would be held in a special treasury account then used to pay the benefits. Of course, all that money sitting around was too tempting for politicians who now spend it and replace it with IOU’s.

Medicare’s first budget in 1966 was $3 billion. The government said that by 1990 we would be spending $12 billion on Medicare; the budget that year was actually $107 billion.

This year the government budgeted $453 billion in Medicare and $290 billion in Medicaid.

Each program has been the victim of political expedience. Politicians of both parties have used the Social Security money with little concern over how that will impact future generations. Medicare and Medicaid have been engorged because of rising health care costs and added benefits.

I find it remarkable that the supporters of the current health care proposals can keep a straight face when they say the legislation will actually reduce the deficit. If they can get the public to buy that then they should add to the bill a “Pigs Can Fly” amendment.

Refreshingly, more Americans are catching on to Washington’s ways. Approval for the health plan has dropped below 50 percent in at least seven major polls. An NBC News-Wall Street Journal Poll found that just 32 percent Americans say President Obama’s health-reform plan is a good idea.

Yet the Democratic leadership of the Senate is rushing to pass the 2,074 page bill by week’s end. Christmas Eve may be the deadline for buying presents, but does legislation as complex and comprehensive as this have to be ready to open Christmas morning?

The answer of course is that Harry Reid’s “Cash for Cloture” program could crumble at any moment. Some senators who have not yet gotten their $100 million hospital (Chris Dodd of Conn.) or their $100 million in extra Medicaid money (Ben Nelson of Neb.) might insist on their share.

(A Talkline listener emailed me the suggestion that Senators Byrd and Rockefeller at least ask for an emergency turnaround gate on the West Virginia Turnpike in return for their “yes” votes.)

Health care reform may be the most significant piece of legislation ever to pass with no bi-partisan support. Medicare passed in 1965 with the votes of 13 Republicans in the Senate and 70 in the House. Social Security had the backing of 16 of 21 Republicans in the Senate and 81 of 96 Republicans in the House.

But all that matters is that the Reid has the numbers and this monstrosity will pass. There will be speeches about the “historic” moment. If the legislation or some form of it becomes law then we’ll know this much about history—we’ve learned nothing from it.
.
.

More than 85,000 in Va. and W.Va. still without power



Wednesday December 23, 2009

by The Associated Press

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- More than 85,000 customers in West Virginia and Virginia remain without power four days after a massive winter storm blew across the region.

Appalachian Power reported 50,330 outages in West Virginia and 26,580 outages in Virginia on Wednesday morning.

In addition, Allegheny Energy reported 8,425 customers in West Virginia were still without power Wednesday morning.

The weekend storm dumped more than a foot of snow across the two states, with some areas seeing around 2 feet.

The utilities say it may be until the weekend before power is restored everywhere, with service to remote areas taking the longest. .


.

Byrd showing up for crucial votes

Wednesday December 23, 2009

Senator's attendance at 59 percent for session, the lowest of any member

by Sara Gavin
Daily Mail Capitol Reporter

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- As members of the U.S. Senate race against the clock to pass historic health care legislation in time for Christmas, Sen. Robert Byrd has been there to cast his critical vote on the controversial issue.

Byrd's staff members say the 92-year-old senator plans to see the measure through until the bitter end.

A final vote on the Senate version of the health care bill is scheduled to take place as early as Thursday morning.

Democrats are striving to make sure every single member of their party participates in the health care votes. The 40 Republicans are unified in their opposition to the health care bill, and Democrats have had trouble corralling all 60 votes needed to fend off procedural delays.

But throughout this first year of the current congressional session, Byrd's participation on the Senate floor has been noticeably sparse as compared to years past.

Statistics provided by a washingtonpost.com database show Byrd has cast a total of 229 votes this year and missed 159. His attendance currently stands at 59 percent for the session, the lowest among current Senate members.

"Obviously it's of concern," said political analyst Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

"You only have two senators, and you want them there for as many votes as possible. But it's also true that the party leadership is bringing Byrd in for the critical votes, the votes where he makes a difference."

Byrd's office declined to comment on whether Democratic Party leaders are indicating when they need for the senator to weigh in.

During the month of December, Byrd has cast 15 votes and missed 20. He voted along party lines in each of those 15 instances, and the vast majority of the decisions were close contests.

In recent years Byrd has logged a strong attendance record in the Senate. Between 2007 and 2009, he missed a total of 65 votes, showing up more than 90 percent of the time. Between 2005 and 2007, he missed just 17 votes, with an attendance record of 97.4 percent.

Sabato says most senators try to maintain voting attendance records above 90 percent.

"But I'm guessing if a poll were taken, most West Virginians would still take Byrd at 59 percent rather than a freshman senator at 90 percent," he said. "Robert Byrd has been number one in bringing home the bacon."

It's no secret that Byrd, the longest-serving member of either house of Congress in the nation's history, has struggled with illness and injuries over the past year. He was hospitalized in the late spring and summer due to a string of infections that kept him out of commission for several months.



The Associated Press
Sen. Robert Byrd is wheeled from the Senate after a series of votes on Capitol Hill in Washington on Tuesday.






It's no secret that Byrd, the longest-serving member of either house of Congress in the nation's history, has struggled with illness and injuries over the past year. He was hospitalized in the late spring and summer due to a string of infections that kept him out of commission for several months.

In September, the senator needed time to recuperate after a fall at his home, again causing him to miss dozens of votes during the healing process.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller currently has the second lowest voting attendance record at 85 percent, according to washingtonpost.com. Rockefeller also struggled with injuries earlier this year and underwent knee surgery in April.

Byrd communications director Jesse Jacobs reported earlier this week that the senator is in "fine" health and planning to spend the impending holidays with his family and his dog, Trouble, once the health care votes are finished.

Sabato says it's clear that as he ages, Byrd isn't enjoying the same level of influence he once held among his colleagues.

"He clearly has a diminished role simply because he doesn't have the energy level to be there all the time, and a lot of the Senate's work is done behind the scenes," said Sabato. "I'm sure they all wish, as he does, that he were 30 years younger, but he's not."

However, Sabato believes most West Virginians are willing to put up with Byrd's spotty attendance and doesn't expect to see the nonagenarian step down from his post anytime soon.

"He has mental faculties sufficient to continue. That's obvious when you watch him on the floor. If his mental faculties were dim, that would be a different story."

Contact writer Sara Gavin at sara.ga...@dailymail.com or 304-348-5148.

.
Source:http://www.dailymail.com/News/200912220658?page=1&build=cache
.

Health Care Bill and Climate Change

Bob Byrd Wheeled in at 1 AM to Vote for "Health" Care


Climate Change

..

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Many people are adopting a new theology that condones and encourages homosexuality. "There is nothing new under the sun", as King Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes 1:9. The permissive 'to each his own' rationale, new ideology that was once only popular among the worldly has now invaded the christian churches, and threatens to transform all facets of society. However, it's important to remember that Satan's motto is "Do as thou wilt"; The Luciferians, the Theosophists, the Wiccans, the Druids, the Santeros, the Shamans, the Animists, the Pagans, etc., have always lived by this concept; Satan has always professed that everyone should do what best pleases them.

Now, the relevant churches are preaching that you can keep your vice, and still be saved, in direct opposition to Jesus' command that we must be born again. Which brings to mind the AA Third Step that says: Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him. So, people have adopted the 12 Step Program by adopting a god of their own imagination, not the God that created all that there is. Yet, the Creator clearly states in His Holy Bible how He wants men/women to behave.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 18:22.

Deuteronomy 23:17 -
There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
.
1 Kings 14:24 -
And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.
.
1 Kings 15:12 -
And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.
.
1 Kings 22:46 -
And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.
.
2 Kings 23:7 -
And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.
.
.
How can anyone forget the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?
.

1And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

2And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.

3And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

9And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

10But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.

11And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

12And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place:

13For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.

14And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.

15And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.

16And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city.

17And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed.

18And Lot said unto them, Oh, not so, my LORD:

19Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die:

20Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one: Oh, let me escape thither, (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall live.

21And he said unto him, See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow this city, for the which thou hast spoken.

22Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do anything till thou be come thither. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.

23The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.

24Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

25And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.


Genesis 19:1-25.
.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

It's Really All About God: Reflections of a Muslim Atheist Jewish Christian

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lKbwxn30Xshttp://


It's Really All About God: Reflections of a Muslim Atheist Jewish Christian
Samir Selmanovic
ISBN: 978-0-470-43326-3
Hardcover
320 pages
September 2009, Jossey-Bass

Millions of us look at religion and say, "No thanks, I'd rather be spiritual than religious." For those of us who feel like this, religion has been losing its credibility and relevance. But our departure from religion is simultaneously a departure from its rich treasures of spiritual practice, community, organized action, and hard lessons learned, often leaving us isolated, incoherent, and ill-equipped for our spiritual journeys. It's Really All About God is a very personal story and a thrilling exploration of a redeeming, dynamic, and radically different way to hold one's religion. Readers will deepen their religious identities while discovering God, goodness, and grace beyond their own religious boundaries.

"Samir Selmanovic is asking the right questions at the right time, and refusing the consolations of certainty at a time when strident orthodoxies--atheist as well as religious--are perilously dividing us."
-Karen Armstrong, author, A History of God and The Great Transformation

"Why are thousands not saying what this man is saying? Such obvious truth must be made even more obvious, and this is exactly what Samir Selmanovic is doing for all of us and for the future of humanity. After you read this wise book, you will say, ‘Of course!' and ‘Thank God!'"
-Fr. Richard Rohr, O.F.M., Center for Action and Contemplation, Albuquerque, New Mexico

"We need a million more Samirs on the planet-people of conviction and humility who know that the vast mystery called God calls us not to the arrogance of ‘ownership' but to the beloved community."
-Parker J. Palmer, author, A Hidden Wholeness, Let Your Life Speak, and The Courage to Teach

"Samir Selmanovic offers a deeply personal reflection on faith, doubt, and ultimately, spiritual peace. . . . [He tells] a sophisticated and introspective story that simultaneously stirs the heart, challenges the intellect, and inspires the soul."
-Daisy Khan, executive director, American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA)

"In a world in which religious traditions are too often digging their heels into the tired sod of exclusionary self-righteousness, this love song to the God of all Existence is a much longed for work of hope and optimism."
-Rabbi Marcia Prager, author, The Path of Blessing: Experiencing the Energy and Abundance of the Divine

"If atheists, agnostics, and non-religious people like myself want to gain understanding and improve the world ...we need to read not only the hard-line voices of ancient religions but also the freshest and wisest voices of modern progressive religion. Samir Selmanovic's is just such a fresh voice."
-Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain of Harvard University, and author, Good Without God: What a Billion Non-Religious People Do Believe

"For all Seekers of the Truth, Samir's deeply insightful, uniquely personal, lyrical quest for a relationship with God provides a clear vision on the need to dig deep, transcending traditional boundaries of faith and theology, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu."
-Rathi Raja, president of Arsha Vedanta Center (www.arshavedantacenter.org ) of Long Island and the executive director of Young Indian Culture Group

"I'm speechless in trying to describe this book. I laughed out loud in places and cried big tears at the end. It's a work of faith, a work of art, and to some, no doubt, it will be a work of damnable heresy. I think this book will change people's lives, and more: it can save lives, in the many senses of that word. All the religious pundits and broadcasters on radio and cable TV had better take notice, because this book threatens our conventional, comfortable categories and familiar black-and-white polarities. Selmanovic has the nerve to imagine our religions becoming, not walls behind which we hide and over which we lob bombs of damnation, but bridges over which we travel to find God in the other."
-Brian McLaren, Author/Activist (brianmclaren.net)

"This is a solidly researched book that reads like a love song. My inner mystic jumped and leaped and shouted for joy. I found myself less lonely in this big old world. I felt like I was at a really good party, each paragraph a song, each page another glass of wine, each chapter the prospect of another dance with a beautiful woman. At this party, nobody got mad at me for letting my hair down. In fact, everyone, including God, encouraged me to go a little crazy."
-Rev. Vince Anderson, bandleader, songwriter, honky-tonkist, co-pastor of Revolution Church NYC, (reverendvince.com)

View all endorsements: http://www.filedby.com/author/samir_selmanovic/3516513/presskit/

More Information About this Book
.
Source: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470433264,descCd-buy.html
,

Seventh-GAY Adventists Documentary: An Interview with the Filmmakers

Posted November 1st, 2009 by Marcel Schwantes


Filmmakers Daneen Akers and her husband Stephen Eyer are deep believers in the power of story telling. Daneen and Stephen, who are new parents, grew up in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, attended SDA schools and both taught at Pacific Union College. And now they make documentaries. Their current project is making news. They are traveling across the country for three months, gathering stories for a feature-length documentary film they're calling "Seventh-Gay Adventists: A film about love, sex, and eternal life."



The stated goal is to create an honest and open conversation about the issue of religion and homosexuality that leads to a more just and compassionate future. The stories in the making of this production so far are heartfelt and courageous. In Lincoln, Nebraska, they filmed gay Adventists talking about attempting suicide, about feeling alone and alienated and struggling hard to reconcile their faith with their sexuality. One 39-year-old man told them about his ongoing depression since he came out in 1997, and his fears of losing his family and his job. And his desire to change the church he grew up in–and misses.

Giving gay Adventists a voice to share who they are with a larger audience is a running theme, and so is change. Change in the church. Change in people who see their gay friends and neighbors telling their stories.

I had many questions about the making of this film so I caught up with Stephen and Daneen. Here is the result of our chats during their travels across the country.

: : :

Lets start with the people you're portraying. Who are you interviewing for this documentary?

Akers: Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender (LGBT) Adventists who struggle to reconcile their religious identity and their sexual identity. We are following a wide variety of subjects right now, some who are still very active in the Adventist church, some who wish they could be active if they felt more welcomed rather than ostracized, and some who no longer consider themselves Adventist. The interesting thing about Adventism–and we think this is one reason why this is a compelling documentary topic–is that to most of us, Adventism is far more than a belief system, it's also a unique cultural system that has a huge and profound influence on someone's identity, family traditions, and worldview. As one of our subjects says, "Adventism has been one of the biggest overarching influences of my life. I was aware first that I was a boy and second that we were Adventists." We're visiting a lot of Adventist areas, including college towns. In the Lincoln area, we interviewed SDA faculty members, gay church members and gay students were still not ready to come out. We also just attended the "Marriage, Homosexuality, and the Church" conference that was just held at Andrews University. Unfortunately we were not allowed to film any of the presentations of conference proceedings, but we were able to talk individually with several presenters who are represent major scholarly voices within the church.

Who is the intended audience?

Eyer: We want to reach an audience both within the Adventist church and beyond who is willing to engage in a meaningful conversation about religion and homosexuality. This topic has become extremely contentious recently, so we recognize that some people aren't going to be willing or able to engage their hearts in this story, but if we're going to learn compassion and to follow Jesus's example of looking past external labels and stereotypes to the heart, then we must learn each other's stories.

Akers: To reach both Adventist and non-Adventist–and even non-religious–viewers is going to be a tricky balancing act. The film must include enough apologetics and biblical scholarship to engage viewers who turn to the Bible for their moral compass, but it must also maintain an anthropological stance that observes and explains this growing denomination and its unique culture to a broader audience. Particularly after Proposition 8 (and the new legislation from both sides that is undoubtedly coming), the Adventist church makes an interesting case study for the broader political and cultural conflict between religion and sexuality.

As story-tellers, what do you anticipate for a running theme or dialogue as you piece this documentary together?

Eyer: One of the joys and big challenges of a documentary is that you really have to be open as filmmakers to where the story takes you. We have ideas, goals, overarching visions right now, but when it comes down to it, we are talking to real people with real conflicts, and we don't know exactly what they're going to say and do, or what might happen over the course of production. We know we want to explore the conflict–or the seeming conflict–between being gay and being Adventist. And we want to do that primarily through stories. As one Adventist religion professor recently told a Kinship gathering, "You have two incurable conditions–you're gay and you're Adventist, and it's awfully hard to stop being either one of those things." It's really one of the most major core conflicts imaginable, and from the people we've had the privilege of talking to already, it's almost an unendurably difficult struggle.


What are some of your gay subjects telling you so far in the interviews?

Akers: Everybody said they prayed mightily to be changed. They knew how hard it would be for their families and their churches. And they couldn't make sense of the notion of love the sinner, hate the sin, because this is who they are–the way God, it seems, had seen fit to make them. You can't believe that God rejects part of you without feeling damaged. It affects you in profound ways. They just want understanding within the church and compassion. One man we recently interviewed longingly misses his church. He aches for his church. He'd like nothing better than to sing in a church choir on Sabbath morning, eat at a potluck, and play a mean game of Rook on Saturday night over popcorn and homemade pizza.

Eyer: We realize that this is an exceedingly sensitive topic. After the conversations we've had on this trip, we also know it is exceedingly important. The brother of a friend committed suicide because he was gay. A young man we talked to in Lincoln has attempted suicide more than once. More than twice. This is a conversation the church needs to have. And having the conversation out in the open, on film, will allow others to enter into the conversation in their own lives, their own circles, their own churches.

What locations are you choosing to include in the film as you travel across the country? how many cities with Adventist centers are you visiting?

Akers: Churches, campuses, and other major Adventist areas (for example, Battle Creek). Not only are we lining up interviews and conversations (both on and off camera), but we're also just wanting to get a sense of Adventism around the country, especially as it relates to this topic. We're trying to plan to be able to attend church all around the country–or at least we'll be checking out a parents' room near you soon! People can follow us on Facebook or Twitter to find our schedule and contact information.

What drove you two to pursue this project?

Akers: Our goal with this film is to spark meaningful dialogue about what it means to be both gay and Adventist. This is a topic that has become extremely contentious, and yet it's often very theoretical and abstract. We hope to tell the stories of LGBT Adventists in such a manner that the viewer can no longer just talk about theology or doctrine without also having a face to accompany the discussion.

Eyer: We personally came to this project because of stories. The vast majority of church-member are straight–we realize that things must be more difficult for LGBT individuals, but we just don't give the issue much time or energy. We didn't become passionate about this issue until we became good friends with several LGBT Adventists (both former and current) who started attending our church in San Francisco (Second Wind). Suddenly abstract topics like Old Testament theology or doctrinal stances--not to mention some of the malicious emails that went around before last year's election--had personal meaning for us. We couldn't sit on the sidelines anymore.

What paradigms do you hope to shift in how Adventists perceive the topic of homosexuality and the church?

Akers: Often Christians are portrayed extremely negatively in the media over the topic of homosexuality. Now, obviously there are some who deserve this portrayal, but the vast majority of Adventists I know really do want to act out of compassion and love. They feel very conflicted by what they have always been taught that the Bible says about homosexuality and the experiences they have had with gays and lesbians. The "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach, which is really what most churches advocate, produces genuine conflict for gays and straights alike. We don't want to be disingenuous and pretend that we approach this without any bias–we do want to provide the fodder and the forum for a transformational conversation to happen–but we are only willing to do this through respectful and fair filmmaking. This is not going to be a Michael Moore, "gotcha" sort of documentary.

Being Californians, did the strong Adventist reaction on both sides to Proposition 8 (the ban on same-sex marriage that became a state constitutional amendment last year) play a role in influencing the making of the documentary?

Akers: We both were involved in starting Adventists Against Prop 8, which garnered more than 1300 signatures (including a significant number of students, scholars, pastors, and church thinkers) on a petition asking the Pacific Union's Church State Council to rescind its support for Prop 8. We felt that Prop 8 was exactly the sort of religiously motivated civil mandate that the Adventist church had traditionally opposed due to our strong religious liberty values. Although Prop 8 passed, we were encouraged to realize that was clearly an issue that a key demographic in Adventism wanted to engage in--and we felt like the next logical step, especially given our backgrounds, was to make a film.



You chose a thought-provoking logline with "A film about love, sex, and eternal life." Will you attempt to reconcile all three in telling the story?

Eyer: The stories in this film are going to explore extremely core issues–this is an examination of how we reconcile what our religion tells us God desires and asks and what our hearts and minds tell us about who we are and how we are made. These are big questions with big consequences. And we want to stir the pot just a bit with that logline to remind people that these really are the big issues in life. But it's also acknowledging something a bit more subtle. For the vast majority of us, we meet people and get to know them without them giving the slightest thought to what we do in the privacy of our own homes. But, for gays and lesbians, this isn't the case. As a married gay friend put it, "When I meet someone and mention my ‘husband', they immediately realize that I'm gay, and they immediately start thinking about how I have sex. I can always sense the dynamic shift instantly, and I'm suddenly a person with a label and usually a judgment."

When should we expect the film to be released?

Akers: That's going to depend very much on funding! Films are costly and take time to develop. We are actively fundraising right now and really do need Obama-style grassroots support of $10 and $20 contributions to make this happen. The film is fiscally sponsored by the San Francisco Film Society, which means that all donations are processed by the film society and are tax-deductible.

Why make this movie now? Why should SDA's care?


Akers: There's no doubt that the question of Christianity and homosexuality is one of the questions of our time right now. The church demographics seem to largely mirror the larger culture, and particularly among younger Adventists, how the church treats LGBT individuals–personally, theologically–is a paramount question, a social justice question. There seems to be a lot of talking about and at gays and lesbians, but there is too little talking with. We hope this film will help make a contribution to these conversations and hopefully start new ones.


What challenges, obstacles or opposition have you encountered so far?

Akers: We're five weeks into a three month trip, and we've encountered really amazing support and some real obstacles already–one school hasn't officially responded at all to our request for a location release although we've been told they are considering rejecting it, and we weren't able to actually film any presentations at the Andrews conference even though it's the biggest church-sanctioned discussion on this topic to happen in recent memory. We've been told that our title is causing some consternation. It's causing people to realize that this isn't likely a church-sponsored project (it's actually a working title that may change). And, yes, this film will likely give voice to some stories that a GC-produced project wouldn't. But there are audiences who can be reached because of that too. I'd like to find a way to communicate to administrators that it is not our intention to make a film that is malicious in any way. We are a part of this church too. And so are our subjects. In fact, we need to be able to show just why it is that the Adventist church is a church that people long to be a part of even when they might have pretty legitimate reasons to just leave completely. We just had a conversation about how we're going to need to include a "Love fest to Adventism" segment. Really, the people we've talked to love this church.

Eyer: When this film eventually screens, I'd like to be able to point proudly to my church and brag about how it was willing to be an open partner in conversation even on this most exceedingly complex and challenging topic. We'd really like this to be a film that is for Adventists–not just about them. But the church is going to have to be a partner in this conversation if that's going to happen. Even after all of the angst I've gone through as I figure out how I relate to Adventism as an adult, I've found myself profoundly disappointed by some of the closed doors we've already faced. From the standpoint of the film, it won't truly hurt it if the church won't participate–the conflict only heightens. But, I really want my church to do the right thing. Wouldn't that be a great subtext of the film? That even when we have truly profound challenges we value engaging with each other in productive and meaningful conversation?

---------------------------------------------------------

For more information:
.
.
P.S. Bolds and Highlights added.
How naive can a 'contemporary' (cool) Adventist be? Is there no discernment about what the Lord's opinion of sodomy is?
If I could rename this project, I would call it: "Retracing Lot's Errors" or "Interviewing The Inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah Today".
..

CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN ADVENTIST AND CATHOLICS



A Report by Angel Manuel Rodriguez


For some time theologians from the Roman Catholic Church had manifested interest in holding conversations with Seventh-day Adventists concerning Adventist beliefs. After careful consideration, and motivated by the opportunity to present our beliefs to leading Catholic theologians, the invitation was accepted. Consequently, Dr. Bert Beach and Dr. John Graz of the GC Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty, and Dr. Angel Manuel Rodríguez of the Biblical Research Institute met in Rome May 5-6, 2000 with Bishop (now Cardinal) Walter Kasper and Msgr. John Radano from the Vatican.

The conversation was very informal, cordial and touched on different topics including the organizational structure of the SDA Church. We provided a brief summary of our doctrines based on the 27 Fundamental Beliefs without analyzing any of them. Catholics placed special emphasis on baptism and the second coming of Christ and pointed out that during Mass there is a daily reference to the Coming of Christ. They showed particular interest in the global nature of our church. We also gave a report on Adventist interchurch relations.

Mgsr. Radano gave a report on how the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity is organized and its activities. It promotes ecumenism inside the church and in regards to other churches. According to him true ecumenism requires faithfulness to the apostolic faith as received from Christ through the apostles and under the safeguard of the church and unity of sacraments and ministry. We discussed some areas of tension. They mentioned that apparently in some regions of the world we were misrepresenting them. We suggested that in those cases they should feel free to contact us and present their concerns. We pointed out that in some parts of the
world our relations with Catholics is fine while in others there are problems on both sides.

Proselytism was briefly discussed. It was clear that they rejected proselytism when it targeted their members. Although they accept civil laws on religious freedom they call for respect inspired by Christian love and unity. When Catholic Bishops visit the Vatican they some complain, they said, about Adventist proselytism. They wanted to know whether we proselytize Catholics because we do not consider them to be Christians-that is to say because we do not accept infant baptism. We commented that a person who lives as a Christian is a Christian but one who does not practice it is not a Christian. We mentioned that there are various definitions of proselytism and added that proselytism is not necessarily wrong. It is based on the person's right to religious freedom that grants the individual the opportunity to explore other faiths and even to accept new doctrinal options. At the end of the meeting Catholics expressed desire to have more informal conversations with Adventists.

Since then three subsequent meetings have been held. The first one was a two day meeting in May 2001 at the John Knox Center in Geneva, Switzerland, named for the leader of the Scottish Reformation. The discussion centered around a paper written by George W. Reid in which he summarized and analyzed Adventist teachings as expressed in the 27 Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists. Other Adventist participants included Dr. Beach, Dr. Graz, and Dr. Roland Meyer. Among the Catholic theologians were Bishop Marc Ouellet, Msgr. John Radano, Dr. James F. Puglisi, and Dr. Ralph Del Colle. The discussion revolved around common doctrinal beliefs. Several questions were raised on peculiar Adventist beliefs but there was no in-depth discussion of any of them. It was anticipated that those could be topics for further discussion in the future.

The second meeting was held in May 2002. The Adventist group included Dr. Beach, Dr. Graz, Dr. Reid, Dr. Rodriguez, and Dr. Richard Lehman, President of the Franco-Belgian Union of SDA. The subject under consideration was Sabbath/Sunday, as requested by the Catholic group. The guiding paper prepared by Dr. Rodriguez focused on an intensive biblical and theological study of the biblical Sabbath. The paper prepared by Catholic theologian Dr. Puglisi focused on a biblical and historical/theological study of Sunday. Catholic theologians argued that the seed of Sunday observance is found in the NT and that it originated as a result of theological reflection on the meaning of the resurrection of Jesus. Adventist commented that doctrines or dogmas are to be based on biblical evidence and not on post-apostolic traditions and that there is no evidence in the NT to support the position that the resurrection of Jesus led to Sunday observance. We also rejected the authority of the church to define and/or establish doctrines without clear biblical basis.

The third meeting took place in May 2003. The Adventist group included this time Dr. Richard Davidson, from Andrews University Theological Seminary, who prepared a paper on hermeneutics, and Dr. Roland Meyer, from Salve Adventist University. The topic of discussion was Adventist and Catholic hermeneutics. The paper on the Catholic side was prepared by Dr. Gospert Byamungu, from the Ecumenical Institute at Bossy. Catholics showed a high view of Scripture while arguing that a modified use of the historical-critical method was not incompatible with it. We also argued for a high view of Scripture but found the classical and modified use of the historical-critical method incompatible with it. Catholics do not separate Scripture from Tradition because according to them Tradition is grounded in Scripture. We argued that as long as Tradition is a witness to apostolic teaching we do not reject Tradition. Our concern is with post-apostolic traditions that are not based on Scripture. Among them we mentioned such teachings as purgatory, the treasury of merits, indulgencies, Mariology, etc. We obviously disagreed. They argued that those teachings were based on biblical-theological concepts. The role of the Magisterium in the interpretation of the Bible was discussed and Catholics argued that in the area of dogmas the church needs an authoritative interpretation of the Bible and that it is provided by the Magisterium (the Pope and the Bishops together make decisions). As Protestants we argued that the Bible is its own interpreter, that it provides its own rules of interpretation and that through the assistance of the Holy Spirit believers are able to understand its message of salvation without the need of a Magisterium.

At the close of the meeting Catholic theologians asked Adventists whether our application of Rev 13 to the Papacy is based on sola scriptura and whether we still apply the chapter to the Papacy. We commented that our position is not exclusively Adventist but that it goes back to the Reformers themselves and is based on a method of interpretation provided by the Bible itself. The Catholic reaction was to consider our interpretation of Rev 13 to be a sectarian element. In a humorous way Adventists commented that the Mariological interpretation of some biblical passages is also sectarian. On a more serious tone, Adventists commented that we would be less than honest should we tell them that we no longer hold our understanding of those prophecies.
However, in conjunction with our eschatology stands an effort to express Christian fellowship and love. Future developments depend on whether religious liberty is practiced or intolerance.
As Adventists, it was added, we should not allow our particular prophetic view to determine the way we relate to Catholics and would not like those views to determine the way Catholics relate to us. There is some tension, but we should seek ways of expressing sincere Christian love to each other.

No conversation has been planned for 2004. The discussions have been useful by providing an opportunity to share with Catholic theologians important aspects of our message and interacting with them. The Adventist papers presented in the meetings are available on our web-page.
2003


.

Walter Carson: Our GC Trademark Attorney


DATE OF PUBLICATION: SEPTEMBER 2000

Over the past several years, we have heard
about Walter Carson. He has been in the General
Conference Office of General Counsel (OGC)
longer than any other attorney. This brief report
will provide you with some additional information
about this man, whom we now learn has been
at the heart of the General Conference trademark
lawsuits since their inception.

Walter E. Carson is 56 years old this year. We
know little about his background before he attended
college. After graduating from Columbia Union College,
he completed a history degree and a law degree
at a Catholic university.

Carson then worked as an assistant law director
for the City of Cleveland, Ohio. Later he was in the
State of Ohio attorney general’s office for a time. After
this he moved back to Maryland and worked first
as a congressional liaison for the U.S. Postal Service
and, then, as a Democratic congressional staff member,
working in the office of John J. Flynt, Jr. (D).

We will learn that Carson seems to find himself
at home with Democrats and Catholics. Later in this
article, we will learn his Democratic connections have
continued on down to the present time. (This is unusual;
since Adventists who oppose abortion, gay
rights, etc., generally are conservative Republicans.)

At the age of 32, Carson joined the General Conference
legal department (1976); and, with the exception
of one year, he has been there ever since. It
is called the Office of General Counsel (OGC).
In August 1981, Vincent Ramik initially suggested
to Neal C. Wilson the idea of trademarking the name,
Seventh-day Adventist, then waiting five years before
suing independent groups using it; for some reason
Carson was not bothered by the idea. While the
concept of routinely dragging Adventist believers into
court appeared somewhat abhorrent at first to most
of the other staff members, Carson was different.

For reasons discussed later in this report, it is likely
that Ramik also obtained his law degree at a Roman
Catholic school. At any rate, the two seemed to have
enough in common that they both could enjoy the
idea of financially ruining and destroying the faith of
Seventh-day Adventists.

Carson threw himself wholeheartedly into the
task of learning trademark law. He was in the prime
of life (37), and had five years in which to prepare.
During the mandatory waiting period before the actual
trademark suits could begin, he studied trademark
law intensively. There was nothing in his professional
work in Ohio or in the federal government
to quite prepare him for this; but, by 1986, Walter
Carson had become the only knowledgeable in-house
trademark attorney at the General Conference. He
had made himself invaluable, but at what a spiritual
cost to his own salvation.

We might inquire why the General Conference
did not have Carson carry on the court cases himself,
omitting Ramik’s expensive help. Perhaps it
looked better if outside attorneys did the dirty work.
Would it look good, to church members, if General
Conference workers were at the front line attack and
destroy team? Would it not look better if they were
perceived as only hovering silently in the background,
portraying themselves in the pages of the Review as
the hapless victims of these terrible independent
groups? At any rate, it was thought best to retain
Vincent Ramik’s expertise which, from years of courtroom
experience in patent and trademark litigation,
far surpassed anything Walter Carson would ever
have.

Carson is acknowledged, by the General Conference
legal staff, as the foremost expert on trademark
and intellectual property matters within the church
.
From the beginning, he has played a key role in working
closely with Robert Nixon in the General Conference
and Vincent Ramik in prosecuting lawsuits
against hapless Adventists. Nixon would write conference
presidents, asking them to report on groups
in their jurisdiction which were using the name without
proper authorization. He would also reply to general
questions from church members. Ramik was
placed in charge of making threatening phone calls
and writing threatening letters. Carson, with his
trademark law knowledge, coordinated between
Ramik, Nixon, and Wilson in selecting and going after
specific targets.

If some of these men make it to heaven, they will
have some explaining to do to a number of the saints
who will be there.

It has been said that Walter Carson was always
willing to help when integrity in the General Conference
needed to be eliminated. Whether or not that is
true, we are shocked at his involvement in the trademark
suits. We are also surprised at how readily he
stepped forward, when an opportunity came to get
rid of the only whistle-blower remaining in the General
Conference: David Dennis.

In the fall of 1983, Adventist Health Systems had
passed $1 billion in debt. By the spring of 1985,
they had exceeded $1.5 billion! In August 1986, they
had reached $2 billion! But AHS, working closely
with the General Conference, came up with a satisfactory
“solution.” On April 5, 1989, AHS officers
met with General Conference officials—and voted
immense salary increases to AHS leaders!

But when Dennis wrote Wilson a pleading letter
on April 17 to rescind this action, it led to Dennis’
later firing. He had become the problem, and problems
must be eliminated. (See our book, Collision
Course, 56 pp., 8½ x 11 $5.00 + $1.50 p&h.)

That December (1986), John Marik was jailed
in Los Angeles for having refused to stop calling his
nine-member group “Seventh-day Adventists.”
Carson, Ramik, and Wilson were jubilant. The experience
so shook Marik that he later left religion
entirely. Yet, from 1981 to 1990, all in-house trademark
expenses have been paid from the sacred tithe.

From 1990 up to the present day, all other trademark
costs have been paid from other church funds
(which would have to be Ingathering or overseas
missions).

You will recall the incident, back in late July
1990, when newly elected President Folkenberg was
trying to find ways to secretly get money to his wife
and Al McClure’s wife. When Donald F. Gilbert, then
GC treasurer, said that this would be unethical, Ron
Wisbey, president of the Columbia Union, arranged
to have the money laundered through their “Worthy
Student Fund” and secretly given to the two wives.

(In our recent report of the Shady Grove Hospital
salary scandal, we reported on how Wisbey was handsomely
rewarded for this money laundering scheme,
by being later transferred to extremely lucrative AHS
executive positions. In 1996, his salary was
$161,000; in 1997, $447,000; and, in 1998,
$364,000. When he tried to silence the Washington
Post for an article they printed, they investigated and
published data on many high salaries he had approved
in committee.)

The payments to the two wives would have continued
down to the present day, if David Dennis had
not reported the situation. Embarrassed by the disclosure,
in a June 19, 1991 letter to Gilbert, Folkenberg
wrote that he had asked the Columbia Union
to discontinue this unethical action because “I only
know that it is vital that my integrity be unsullied.”

He was not worried about his integrity until he was
found out. The wives had by that time collected
$20,520. Once again, it was David Dennis who was
blamed as the troublemaker. Was it not he who had
dared to mail an auditor’s report of the scheme to
every officer in the Columbia Union Conference?

Two months later John Marik, who had been
hounded by the General Conference trademark attorneys
for four full years, abandoned Christianity
entirely. Who will answer in the judgment for what
happened to him?

Two months after that (October 1991), a Los Angeles
federal court decided in favor of Kinship. This
put all further GC trademark suits on hold till they
could find a suitable group for another frontal attack.
But what would happen if David Dennis ever
learned about the latest money-laundering scheme,
the one with James Moore which, by 1984, had already
involved many letters and phone calls? (More
about this below.) Dennis must be eliminated.

In October 1984 at the age of 40, Carson was
very willing to accept the assignment of leading out
in verbally attacking David Dennis, calling him a liar,
a child abuser and adulterer—in order to get Dennis
fired. Without corroborating evidence, Carson
charged Dennis with having had a long history of
sexual misconduct. But he was careful to make those
charges in a closed meeting where the promised
court reporter was told not to appear.

“On October 4, and with Mittleider present,
Dennis was called in to Carson’s office. Dennis
was presented with the affidavit which Carson
got Adels to sign and summarily told that he
must resign his post.

“Dennis refused. It is an interesting fact that,
when church workers are framed by false
memory syndrome charges, leadership generally
sides with the defendant—not with the accuser.
But Dennis was different.

“The next day David was again called in for a
second interrogation by Carson and Mittleider.
This time a different approach was used. Dennis
was accused of alleged improper financial
dealings and other accusations! They were untrue,
and he refused to resign. Every possible
avenue of impeaching his character and frightening
him into quitting was being attempted.

“On October 9, Dennis was again ordered to
meet with his persecutors. This time a third
tactic was used. He was summarily told that
the General Conference leaders could, and
would, destroy his reputation if he did not resign
immediately! When he said the charges
were untrue, he was called a liar. Once again,
he was told that leadership intended to totally
destroy his reputation and slander his character
if he did not immediately resign.

“Two days later, on October 11, in desperation
a fourth tactic was employed. This time,
Dennis had engaged an attorney with him, who
listened, by conference call, while Dennis was
Walter Carson: Our General Conference Trademark Attorney

told that he must resign immediately—because
the General Conference now had documentary
proof of each and every charge leveled against
him. David knew this claim was as unfounded
as all the others, and he challenged them to
produce the documents. At this, in bursts of
anger they demanded his immediate resignation.

“In the months which have passed since then,
none of that supposed evidence has ever been
presented. This is because no such evidence
exists. It was a lying report.

“Documents and paperwork were fabricated,
and slanders continue against Dennis and his
family. No proof has been found to support
these charges, and Dennis staunchly and consistently
maintains his complete innocence.”—
Collision Course, p. 41.

On December 29, Dennis was fired. Carson had
done his part, and Folkenberg was proud of him.
After the 1992 money-laundering scheme to the
wives had failed, Folkenberg went to Walter Carson
and asked him to figure out another way to privately
get money into his, Folkenberg’s, hands. Of course,
this was highly unethical; and, in the manner in
which it was done, it was far worse in scope than
the sneaky “Worthy Student” scheme had been. The
two knew it would have to be done in utmost secrecy;
otherwise it would ruin both of their reputations
in the church.

In mid-1992, at Carson’s request, the Chicago
law firm of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal (SN&R)
set up the Elder and Mrs. Robert S. Folkenberg
Trust. The objective, obviously, was to provide a secret
money channel to Folkenberg. In return, he
would provide special favors to donors.

Such a practice would be enough to ruin a highplaced
Adventist leader, if discovered. But Folkenberg
had always been a risk taker. And, after working
in the General Conference for years, doing “the
Lord’s work” in suing faithful Adventist believers,
Carson had become hardened. Whether it involved
working up documents on David Dennis or dragging
innocent people into federal court, Carson was
ready to brave his way through the latest leadership
project presented to him.

One of the men who wanted to funnel money
through that Chicago trust fund to Folkenberg was
none other than James Moore, the Sacramento businessman
who had been imprisoned from 1989 to
1992 on eight counts of grand larceny. (“Larceny” is
the crime of unlawfully taking away another person’s
property, with the intent of depriving him of it permanently.
Theft of money is frequently involved.

Folkenberg knew all about this; but, in the hope of
personal profit, he continued working with James
Moore in spite of it.)

In order to render the fund even more secretive,
Carson set in motion arrangements to transfer the
moneys from the Chicago fund to a Channel Islands
fund on June 15, 1992. (The Channel Islands are
located in the English Channel, south of Britain. Like
a number of other locations in the world, it is a financial
haven for people who want to hide financial
transactions.)

Thomas Opferman, a SN&R attorney, sent Carson
and Moore a draft of the Trust agreement and a
Ruling Request. Upon receiving those papers, Moore
told Opferman that he would send the documents
to his Channel Islands lawyer, who would draft documents
to set up a new foundation there to receive
donations to the Folkenberg Trust.

But Opferman sent a letter, dated June 24, 1992,
to Carson, informing him that this new account
would have to be cleared by the IRS, and they might
give it very careful scrutiny. Whether this worried
Carson and Folkenberg is not known. But we do
know that the Channel Islands Trust was never set
up. (The present writer has the impression that
Moore regularly stalled Folkenberg, in order to get
as many favors as possible with the least payment
of money.)

If it had been, the plan provided for a check for
$700,000 to have been immediately placed in it by
Moore, for making “distributions at least quarterly
to Elder Folkenberg.”

That same year, Robert’s brother, Donald Folkenberg
was hired without approval as an “associate
treasurer.” His assignment: disbursing all overseas
money for Robert’s new project—Global Mission.

(Some now believe that Global Mission was an invented
project, to provide Donald a treasury to be in
charge of.)

By November 1992, the man who had been
trained by Jesuits could no longer take the sharkinfested
environment at world headquarters. Walter
Carson tendered his resignation and went back to
Ohio and entered private practice.

Without his help, Robert Folkenberg relied more
heavily on secret phone calls to James Moore which,
unknown to him, Moore was secretly taping. (When
you go into financial partnership with a man earlier
convicted of larceny, you should expect some unusual
treatment.)

As Folkenberg’s involvement in Moore’s Kanaka
Valley Associates mess deepened, he pled for Carson
to return, which he did in December 1993. He also
needed to streamline his personal messenger-boy
services, on behalf of Moore, on church-paid flights
to national leaders throughout the world.

In 1994, Carson submitted a Trust funding proposal
to the board of Geometra, Inc., another of
Moore’s business interests. In a memorandum dated
September 8, 1994, addressed to Moore as an executive
committee member of Geometra, Carson
proposed opening three foreign bank accounts in
the name of “Foreign Geometra, Inc.” The letter further
stated that it would be set up in one of the 57
countries which had signed the Patent Cooperation
Treaty, “thus providing confidentiality on banking
matters and financial affairs” (i.e., even more secretive
fund transfers to Folkenberg).

Why did Folkenberg need so much extra money?
Why did James Moore want to give him so much?
When Folkenberg was ousted in 1999, it was disclosed
that he had not only arranged for Moore to
visit key national leaders in other nations,—but even
went along to introduce him! This gave Moore opportunity
to arrange many lucrative business deals.

(Example: In an August 1, 1994, letter to
Desmond Tutu, Folkenberg attempted to sue the GC
president’s office to legitimize Moore and the “humanitarian
potential” of his activities.

(Example: A memorandum to Shareholders of
Geometra Engine and Fuel Systems, Inc., from
Nicholas LaPolla, secretary of Geometra. La Polla
was sitting in Moore’s office on January 30, 1995,
when Moore received a phone call from Folkenberg.

La Polla overheard Folkenberg tell Moore that he
had set tentative appointments for Geometra to show
its equipment to the presidents of Malawi, Tanzania,
and Uganda and that Folkenberg would try to
secure appointments for Geometra with the presidents
of Pakistan and Egypt when he met each of
them in a few weeks.)

This is what our General Conference president
was doing. And the man he was working with was
James Moore, a faithful Roman Catholic, who among
other duties, was on a Vatican-owned corporate
board, Vicariatus Urbis Foundation! (See our book,
Robert Folkenberg’s Resignation, third edition, 70
pp., 8½ x 11, $4.75 + $1.50.)

Moore was known to have given a number of large
donations to high-placed Catholic entities. Folkenberg
and Carson knew this, but continued working
with him. Carson’s letter further specified that certain
directors of Sharing International Tennessee
would have authority to access these foreign accounts
for several purposes, including “to provide funding
of the ___ Trust.” Blank lines were typed in by Carson
to add to the secrecy; Carson well-knew that church
leaders would never tolerate this secret slush fund
if they ever learned about it.

Yet, when later called upon to explain his relations
with Moore, Folkenberg said that his association
with him did not involve “any expectation of any
personal profit.”

What did Folkenberg gain from being Moore’s
errand boy, traveling all over the world to promote
his business? Consider this example: One month
after Folkenberg wrote to Desmond Tutu in South
Africa, Walter Carson submitted a proposal to Moore
for funding the Folkenberg Trust through foreign
bank accounts—in order to keep the transfer of
money to Folkenberg secret. How much was transferred?
It is difficult to ascertain the full scope of
this, since the overseas accounts were so carefully
placed and so many devious methods were used to
transfer funds.

Walter Carson must have been a beneficiary also.
Surely, he was not carrying on such a personally risky
operation for his health. Although Carson was fully
implicated in all these transactions, only Folkenberg
was fired. A primary reason was that Carson is the
only in-house expert in trademark and property
rights litigation in the General Conference. They
needed him in order to continue with their efforts,
to erase Adventism from the hearts of faithful believers;
ostensibly, “to protect the Adventist name.”
It is interesting to note that, on December 8,
1992, the GC Executive Committee voted to approve
new guidelines for the operation of the Office of General
Counsel (OGC; the GC legal department, in
which Carson worked), which included the following
stipulations:

It “will provide or coordinate all legal services
[including trademark suits] to the General
Conference entities operating within the
General Conference complex . . and will provide
legal services, as requested, to General
Conference institutions and world divisions.
Additional legal work will be limited to other constituent
church organizations and institutions.

Staff lawyers shall not have private legal practices.”

Although the OGC held a staff meeting once a
month, when the attorneys could discuss their activities
and counsel with one another, Carson never
mentioned his involvement in helping to launder
funds through foreign banks, to secret Folkenberg
accounts.

Carson’s September 6, 1996 letter, completing
the Settlement Agreement, by which he and Folkenberg
pulled out of the Kanaka Valley Associates
scheme, greatly angered James Moore, and he vowed
to sue both men.

In a letter dated October 31, 1997, Moore angrily
told Folkenberg that he wanted more money.
“I want some income stream, Robert; and I want
it now. I don’t want to be made [to] feel like a heel
with my business associates due to non-timely payments,
when in fact it is not due to my doing; rather
to the mishandling on the part of Carson through
the [Kanaka Valley Associates] settlement agreement
for your benefit.”

Although Folkenberg and Carson had not wanted
to displease Moore, they got out of the Kanaka
scheme just in time to avoid a lawsuit against the
General Conference by one of the investors who had
been defrauded of a large amount of money. (Kanaka
Valley is a waterless, useless valley in the Sierra Nevada
foothills, above Sacramento, which Moore extracted
money from investors to develop.)
In that same letter, Moore demanded that Folkenberg
pressure ADRA (Adventist Disaster Relief
Association) to become involved in one of Moore’s
financial schemes. Folkenberg dutifully applied pressure
to ADRA (which handles more money than any
other single church entity), but they refused to associate
with Moore.

Moore finally went ahead with his threatened lawsuit
against Folkenberg, Carson, and the General
Conference. Papers were served at world headquarters
on December 28, 1998; and an “earthquake”
was produced.

Phil Hiroshima, a conscientious Sacramento
Adventist attorney, was hired by the General Conference
to investigate the matter. The massive amount
of information he uncovered has helped provide data
for this present report.

In February 1999, Robert Folkenberg resigned;
and, in March, Jan Paulsen was elected president
by the Spring Council.

Because so much incriminating evidence had already
been uncovered (linking Carson closely to the
entire Moore-Folkenberg affair) immediately after his
election, Paulsen appointed an Ad Hoc [special purpose]
Group to look into Carson’s conduct and make
a recommendation as to what action should be taken.

Ralph Thompson, the secretary of the General
Conference, chaired the group. The other members
were Matthew Bediako, a GC vice-president, and B.

J. Christiansen, assistant to the North American Division
president. But they had a problem: Carson
was the only in-house attorney able to keep the trademark
suits going. So it was decided to ask Robert
Nixon to survey church leaders, to see if Carson still
had their trust. Nixon and Carson had been working
closely for years on the trademark lawsuits and
were extremely close friends. Nixon reported back
that most of the leaders felt that Carson could remain
if he showed enough remorse.

When the Ad Hoc Group reported back to Paulsen,
essentially on the basis of Nixon’s conclusion
he issued a report to the General Conference Administration
Committee (ADCOM), which on May 18,
1999, approved the following action:

“As a result of Walter E. Carson’s role in the
dealings with James E. Moore and the Moore/
Folkenberg connection while in the employ of
the General Conference Office of General Counsel,
it was “VOTED, To stipulate that Walter E. Carson’s
continuing employment in the Office of General
Counsel will be contingent on the following:
“1. A letter of reprimand placed in his file.

“2. A six-month probationary period for his
employment, at the end of which his standing
will be reviewed by the Legal Affairs Committee.

“3. An acknowledgement of his mistakes and
poor judgment in dealing with James E. Moore.”

Nixon, head of the Office of General Counsel and
one of Carson’s closest friends, stated that he was
satisfied with the disciplinary measures and very
pleased that Carson would continue working in his
department.

Carson was privately told what ADCOM was going
to decide,—before they decided it. So, in a letter
dated the day before (May 17), Carson wrote a letter
of remorse to President Paulsen. It was accepted,
and Walter Carson’s probationary period ended satisfactorily
in the middle of last November. One OGC
attorney privately noted that it all amounted to nothing
more than a “slap on the wrist” of the repentant
Walter Carson: Our GC Trademark Attorney
Carson.

As for the first condition in the ruling, the “letter
of reprimand” was never written. Ray Dabrowski,
the GC public relations officer, said that a later committee
action decided to rescind that requirement.

Without that letter in his employment file, no prospective
employer would ever learn about what
Carson had done.

The 1993 General Conference guidelines had
stated that its attorneys were not to carry on private
practice outside of their work for the church. Carson
had clearly violated that guideline.

In addition, he had carried on activities which
no church worker should engage in. For several
years, he had been the person who arranged for secret
payments of money through offshore banks to
be paid to Folkenberg; part of it, very likely, was split
with him.

What Walter Carson had repeatedly done was
definitely not in the best interests of the church. Indeed,
church leaders were totally shocked when they
learned about the Folkenberg/Moore activities which
he had been coordinating.

Someone may say that Walter Carson did not
realize the seriousness of what he had been doing.
Yet he was very well-aware of the importance of preserving
the “good name” of the church. In a Review
interview, dated June 25, 1998 (ironically, only two
months before Moore filed his lawsuit), Carson defended
the right of the General Conference to carry
on its systematic trademark attacks on small groups
of Adventist believers. He said this in defense of that
ongoing persecution:

“A name, particularly the name of a faith community,
identifies it and its value system as distinct
from all others. Those who could co-opt
that name or trade on its potential for goodwill
are acting unethically and illegally. They confuse
the public, the media, and at times, even
our own members.”

Ironically, while he was managing frontal attacks
against small groups of Adventists “to defend the
good name of the church,” he was secretly overseeing
secret activities which were well-able to destroy
the confidence of many—in and out of the church—
in that name.

Yet another tragedy is that, ultimately, the ongoing
trademark lawsuits are likely to destroy the confidence
of many in the church in the basic integrity
of leadership. The denomination, especially in North
America, is more likely to destruct—rip to pieces—
because of the many wrong things that are being
done, strangely enough, in order to hold it together.

Things like women ministers and church officers,
Pentecostal Celebration church services, trademark
lawsuits to eliminate competition, and high salaries
to a few.

At the Florida Trademark Lawsuit on March 13-
16, 2000, Robert Nixon, head of the OGC, was a
witness and Walter Carson, the attorney who had
been in OGC the longest, was the General Conference
representative. Although he knew more about
trademark law than anyone else in world headquarters,
it was Vincent Ramik, sitting beside him, who
wrote the notes, nodded his head in signals, and
directed the plaintiff’s attack throughout the trial.

As a key member of a special hit squad, Walter
Carson will have to answer for it in the Judgment.

At that trial, one of their key arguments was that
the notorious U.S. Supreme Court decision in the
Oregon Smith case was that government can overrule
the individual practice of religion! Therefore,
the General Conference had a legal right to trample
on the rights of conscience. (See our book, Florida
Trademark Trial, 100 pp., 8½ x 11, $7.50 + $1.50.)

Before concluding this brief paper, do you sense
as I do that very real trouble is ahead? Does it not
seem that retribution will eventually overtake each
of the primary leaders in this nefarious trademarking
persecution of innocent Seventh-day Adventist
believers? This is a very real possibility. The God of
heaven guards His own, and He will take vengeance
on those who attack His defenseless ones.

As I write these words, there comes to mind a
passage of Scripture. Looking it up, I am struck with
the words. Carefully read it for yourself: Patriarchs
and Prophets, page 300. It tells of another group,
many years ago, which decided to harass and injure
God’s faithful—and frequently so defenseless—
people. It is possible to err in many ways, and we all
err frequently. But when a group of men set their
hand to deliberately and systematically destroy God’s
little ones, trouble will inevitably return upon their
own heads.

“Concerning this wicked people the Lord declared,
‘The hand of Amalek is against the
throne of Jehovah.’ Exodus 17:16, margin.

“The Amalekites were not ignorant of God’s
character or of His sovereignty, but instead of
fearing before Him, they had set themselves to
defy His power . . They had taken oath by their
gods that they would destroy the Hebrews, so
that not one should escape, and they boasted
that Israel’s God would be powerless to resist
them. They had not been injured or threatened
by the Israelites. Their assault was
wholly unprovoked. It was to manifest their
hatred and defiance of God that they sought to
destroy His people. The Amalekites had long
been high-handed sinners, and their crimes had
cried to God for vengeance, yet His mercy had
still called them to repentance; but when the
men of Amalek fell upon the wearied and defenseless
ranks of Israel, they sealed their
nation’s doom. The care of God is over the
weakest of His children. No act of cruelty or
oppression toward them is unmarked by
Heaven. Over all who love and fear Him, His
hand extends as a shield; let men beware that
they smite not that hand; for it wields the
sword of justice.”—Patriarchs and Prophets,
300.

Some may say that only a few men are trying to
remove Adventism from the public worship of faithful
believers. But when lower echelon officers, and
church members alike, do nothing to put a stop to
these horrible trademark lawsuits, the responsibility
for these actions spreads. This is a very serious
matter.

If I told you that you could no longer be a Seventh-
day Adventist, what effect would that have on
your life if you obeyed me? That is what these men
are trying to do to God’s little ones. They will pay for
it. Mark my word, for I have the authority of God’s
books underwriting it.

One would expect that this report would end
here. But Walter Carson’s latest adventure is to eliminate
one of the anti-abortion, anti-gay members of
the U.S. House of Representatives! As every thinking
American knows, it is only by a very slim majority
that conservative Republicans continue to hold
on to the House. Both the Senate and Executive
Branch are essentially liberal.

We have in hand an undated Spring 2000 news
clip from a Maryland newspaper, which reports that
Walter Carson has been trying to unseat Roscoe G.
Bartlett
, a Seventh-day Adventist Republican U.S.
Congressman from the 6th Congressional District
in Maryland.

As you might expect, Carson is running on the
Democratic ticket, and is one of four contenders for
the Democratic slot in the 6th Congressional District.

Bartlett, in contrast, is a very conservative Republican.

We have watched Mr. Bartlett from a distance
and have noted that he has appeared to be quite
consistent in his defense of the right in his statements
and votes in the U.S. Congress.

As we already knew from other sources, this
news clip mentions Walter Carson’s history and law
degree training from Catholic University of America
(located in the District of Columbia), and also mentions
his “Civic activities: Active in Rotary.” Why is
he active in the Rotary Club, a very secular organization,
when all his work is supposed to be exclusively
done for the General Conference?

Walter Carson obtained his graduate degree (MA)
from one of the most prestigious Jesuit university
in the U.S. After completing it, he liked the people
there so much that he remained for additional years
of training and earned a law degree.

Why would a Seventh-day Adventist attend Catholic
University of America
, when he could just as
easily drive down into the District and go to American
University?

While in attendance at the Adventist Seminary
in Washington, D.C., I regularly drove by CUA and
saw the Jesuit priests walking in the garden, as
Ignatius Loyola instructed them to do each day. In
my 1981 research on the Jesuits, I concluded that
every Jesuit university seeks to cautiously recruit
agents from among its students. Young Adventists,
once they obtain their degrees, make excellent agents!

I cannot help but wonder how many other graduates
of Jesuit universities are employees of our
church.
(Catholic University of America is situated
rather close to Takoma Park.)

In a recent statement on the internet,

Tom Wetmore, another OGC attorney, inadvertently gave
significant information when he told that he has also
worked extensively on the trademark cases! Only
the Judgment will reveal the full extent of those lawsuits
and the full cost in damaged and destroyed
lives.

The other trademark attorney managing our ongoing
trademark litigation also has a Catholic background.

After we revealed, early on, that Vincent
Ramik was said to be a Roman Catholic, it was later
claimed that Ramik had been a faithful Protestant
all his adult life! What are the facts on this matter? I
mention this again, because it is so frequently controverted
by church leaders.

The September 17, 1981, issue of the Adventist
Review said he was a Roman Catholic. (You will find
those articles reprinted on pages 53-54 of our book,
The Story of the Trademark Lawsuits.) In that issue,
twice the Adventist Review said Ramik was a
Roman Catholic, and twice Vincent Ramik said he
was a Catholic!
Are we then to believe Nixon’s 1990
statement, that Ramik had been a Protestant his
entire adult life?

The following statements, from 1981 contrasted
with 1990, clearly do not agree. Here they are:
1981 ADVENTIST REVIEW: RAMIK IS A
ROMAN CATHOLIC—“Vincent L. Ramik, senior
partner of Diller, Ramik & Wight, Ltd, a
lawyer who practices patent, trademark, and
copyright law in Washington, D.C. . . Ramik, a
Roman Catholic, spent more than 300 hours
researching 1,000 relevant cases [for the E. G.
White plagiarism issue].”—“Ellen White’s Use
of Sources,” Adventist Review, September 17,
1981, p. 3, para. 1, 3.

“Ramik: Mrs. White moved me [as I read her
writings]! In all candor, she moved me. I am a
Roman Catholic; but, Catholic, Protestant,
whatever—she moved me.”—Op. cit., p. 2, para.
18.

“I’m not a practicing Roman Catholic. I was
born one; but my wife happens to be a Protestant;
one child is baptized a Catholic, one is
baptized a Protestant. I guess you could say we
are an ‘ecumenical’ family!”—“There Simply Is
No Case,” p. 4, para. 22.

“Review: Did the fact that Mr. Ramik, a Roman
Catholic, would of necessity have to read
The Great Controversy in its entirety (which
some Catholics find personally offensive) concern
you as you contemplated retaining him?
“Johns: We recognized that some Adventists
might wonder about whether he could be objective.

But, on the other hand, if we hired an
Adventist lawyer and he came up with a favorable
conclusion some perhaps would say, ‘Oh,
well, he had an ax to grind—what else would
you expect?’ Anyway, we already knew Mr.
Ramik to be highly professional and objective,
and, most important, we wanted to know the
truth—let the chips fall where they might.”—
Op. cit., p. 7, para. 7.

Next, we turn to the 1990 statement, issued by
Robert Nixon:

1990 GENERAL CONFERENCE STATEMENT:
RAMIK HAS NOT BEEN A ROMAN
CATHOLIC FOR OVER 25 YEARS, BUT HAS
BEEN A PRESBYTERIAN FOR 25 YEARS—
“You may also wish to know that our trademark
counsel, Mr. Vincent Ramik, who is often described
as a Roman Catholic by independent
publications, is a Presbyterian. Mr. Ramik was
raised in a Roman Catholic family, but abandoned
those beliefs as a college student. After
marriage, he and his wife joined a Presbyterian
church, of which they have been members now
for a quarter century.”—Robert W. Nixon, Associate
General Counsel to the General Conference,
letter dated February 8, 1990, paragraph
4.

The chief architect of the trademark lawsuits is
an individual who said he was Roman Catholic. After
we disclosed Ramik’s religious affiliation, he denied
the fact, declaring he had been a Presbyterian all his
adult life! If that is so, then either he told a mistruth
to our General Conference and Review leaders, or
they lied out of whole cloth. But why should we expect
anyone to have fabricated a claim to lifelong Catholicism?

If Ramik’s wife has been a Protestant all her adult
life, and Vincent has been a Protestant all his adult
life—why did they arrange to baptize one of their two
children as a Roman Catholic?

Now we learn that the chief in-house architect of
the trademark lawsuits received his graduate and doctoral
training in a leading Jesuit university.
Carson
and Ramik have worked closely on these cases for
nearly twenty years.

We have been asked about the latest news on
Robert Folkenberg. We know that both he and his
brother, Donald, have moved their families to southern
Virginia, where they are involved in a land development
project south of Roanoke. Robert remains
on full salary and benefits till July 1; and friends,
who he earlier helped move into key offices, are trying
to get a nice church job for him, so his salary can
continue. By the time this tract set is printed, more
news may have surfaced.

Meanwhile, church leaders have inexplicably been
quite concerned to bring Robert back into the spotlight.

Conference presidents have been arranging for
him to speak at camp meetings in various places, in
both summers of 1999 and 2000 and at various occasions
throughout the year. Why this is being done
is somewhat of a puzzle to us.

So many things are being done to hold the church
together, which are tended to controversy and dissolution.

Surely, this is a time for earnest prayer. The Final
Crisis of the Sunday Law cannot be far off. The
church will appear as about to fall, but it will not.
The church, which we are told are the commandment-
keeping people of God, will be greatly lessened
in the Sunday law crisis; but, purified, it will go forth
and give the final warning to the world and many will
come in.

How very thankful we are that the God of heaven
is in charge! Fear not, little flock. Look up, for your
redemption draweth nigh!

News note: We have learned that Walter Carson did
not win the Democratic primary. He did not even get 2%
of the vote! He also served as “Parliamentarian,” to decide
all procedural questions at the Toronto 2000 Session
.


More WAYMARKS - from ——————————
PILGRIMS REST HCR 77, BOX 38A - BEERSHEBA SPRINGS, TN 37305 USA


.