Adventist Media Response and Conversation

Thursday, February 09, 2012

The corruption of Adventist media


Recently I decided to stop contributing articles to Atoday.com. This was to some extent based upon the editor’s rejection of my article critical of the politicization in Liberty Magazine. I was critical of the assertions made in the opening paragraph of that article where there were accusations made against certain un-named Republican Presidential candidates, the accusations used no words of the candidates and did not mention or even footnote the candidates or their specific comments. You are just supposed to believe the authors assertions as the starting point for the article even though the writer is a fairly notorious political liberal writing about political conservatives and very evidently biased in his views. The Atoday  online editor was incapable of explaining what should be changed in the article, just I should tone it down and rewrite it. Not particularly helpful editorial input and since I was feeling that the editor did not have the intellectual ability for his job or was consistent in how he did his job I quit writing for the column.

My thinking then was that he did not want to embarrass Liberty magazine by pointing out their terribly biased article. Then I saw on the Atoday website an article by Stephen Foster which did exactly the same thing as the editors of the Liberty article did. That is allow an article to publish anonymous accusations against a Presidential candidate without using or footnoting the candidate or the words or context of the statement. This kind of shoddy writing I have come to expect from Stephen Foster who is like the Liberty article a political liberal, writing against a conservative candidate. Here is what Stephen foster wrote:
If you happen to be somewhat unclear as to what I mean about the religio-political class rhetorically lamenting the civil rejection of religion in order to reverse or undo the practice of conducting public affairs without a religious element; you should know that a well-known politician, who for now shall remain nameless, recently asserted that the United States is not a secular nation.
Now, look at those two definitions of secularism again. Is he right or wrong?
Here he asks for the decision to be made not upon what the candidate actually said but upon what Foster asserts the candidate was saying. With absolutely no context given or even referencing the candidate. Specifically saying : religio-political class rhetorically lamenting the civil rejection of religion in order to reverse or undo the practice of conducting public affairs without a religious element;” That is a lot to assume, but assuming is what Foster does and apparently the editor finds such assumptions perfectly appropriate.

So as with the Liberty article  I researched and here is  what we can ascertain Stephen Foster is referring to. Mitt Romney at a rally said:
“We are not a secular nation. We are a nation that believes in a provident hand.” http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/ROMNEY_7031449/ROMNEY_7031449/
For some reason Traditional Adventists like Foster seem to have a great fear of any political person who actually has religious beliefs even if those beliefs are well founded in the history of the United states. The belief in God is not something unfamiliar to Americans, not just a couple of words on money that say “In God We Trust” In fact 9 out of 10 Americans believe in God. http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/americans-continue-believe-god.aspx
Traditional Adventists it appears have migrated to the atheistic side of politics, because they fear people of their own belief system (Christians and theists). Not because of what those Christians have done but because of what they fear they will do based upon their rather silly eschatological beliefs developed in the 19th century. These people can’t get past their traditions so they align with those raging against Christianity. The logic of their position is so poor that it requires making horrible assumptions which if anyone saw the actual quotes they were referring to they would laugh at their foolishness, so as in the two articles mentioned above they hide the information and rely upon their biased assertions.  The people who should know better…the editors of these articles go along with it because they either don’t know the facts, and/or are so political biased as to not even question this kind of manipulative writing.  

For me I can’t support these groups any longer, They are not behaving in any kind of accountable way and it is a tragedy to see this happen to Adventist media but it may be the inevitable consequence of having such a broken theological and eschatological system of beliefs where facts must often be ignored to hold to Adventist doctrine and traditions.
See the following quotes for famous American founders and their belief in providence.

George Washington was a spiritual man who recognized the paternal protection of God in not only his own life, but in the life of the country he was fighting to free from tyranny. His own witness of the many miracles that thwarted the victory of Great Britain over the often ill-equipped army he was leading likely inspired the following words he wrote in a letter to General Thomas Nelson in 1778: “The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.” http://thenewamerican.com/history/american/10040-faith-of-the-founding-fathers


“If it were not for my firm belief in an overruling Providence, it would be difficult for me, in the midst of such complications of affairs, to keep my reason on its seat. But I am confident that the Almighty has His plans, and will work them out; and, whether we see it or not, they will be the best for us.”
President Abraham Lincoln, Speaking to the Christian Commission during the Civil War

[Benjamin]Franklin maintained a firm belief, however, in "a Being of infinite Wisdom, Goodness and Power" (165) [3], a God who by "providence" [4] acts frequently in the world, a power who could and would suspend deterministic natural laws at will. http://home.uchicago.edu/~ahkissel/papers/franklinreligion.html

Samuel Huntington
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; JUDGE; GOVERNOR OF CONNECTICUT
It becomes a people publicly to acknowledge the over-ruling hand of Divine Providence and their dependence upon the Supreme Being as their Creator and Merciful Preserver . . . and with becoming humility and sincere repentance to supplicate the pardon that we may obtain forgiveness through the merits and mediation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.54

Benjamin Rush
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; SURGEON GENERAL OF THE CONTINENTAL ARMY; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; “FATHER OF AMERICAN MEDICINE”; TREASURER OF THE U. S. MINT; “FATHER OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION”
The Gospel of Jesus Christ prescribes the wisest rules for just conduct in every situation of life. Happy they who are enabled to obey them in all situations! . . . My only hope of salvation is in the infinite tran¬scendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the Cross. Noth¬ing but His blood will wash away my sins [Acts 22:16]. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly! [Revelation 22:20]98
I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of inspiration, but I am as satisfied that it is as much the work of a Divine Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testament.99


5 comments:

Andrew said...

I appreciate your decision to not continue contributing. I'm not a writer, but it is clear that a good author will be responsible in their writing methodology (citing sources is so basic!).

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry you felt like your political candidate was attacked. Politics are a very touchy subject to some.

Ron Corson said...

It was not an attack on my candidate. It was an irresponsible lie produced by innuendo and poor reasoning skills. There is certainly enough real material out there to document reasoned disagreement with most every candidate.

Those who can't reason manufacture issues however.

Ron Corson said...

I am reminded by the statement of anonymous about, the person is sorry I felt my political candidate was attacked. It is this kind of misinterpretation to try and change the meaning of things that is so horrible. It is an interpretation based upon nothing that I have said but upon the prejudice of anonymous who thinks he/she knows so much more about me that he/she can tell me what I am thinking.

It is the stupidity of such views that is the problem. Stephen Foster is an expert at this kind of misinterpretation an prejudiced egotism.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
I'm sorry you felt like your political candidate was attacked. Politics are a very touchy subject to some."

In writing this, anonymous attempts to subtly sweep all of Corson's blog into a little pile of "it's personal, isn't it?" This of course is an attempt by anonymous to invalidate the entire blog.

It shows that anonymous would prefer to "cheat" in this attempt. Since he cannot or fears to debate the blog with reason or logic, he instead tries to do what so many intellectual lightweights do - make it personal.

Corson, you make some very good points. I was particularly struck by the statement that we would rather align ourselves with the openly hostile enemies of God and Christianity than with those that might be part of a National Sunday law in the nebulous "future".

How sad that we Adventist can be blinded to seeing other Christians as a greater enemy than the Bill Mahers, the anti-Christian liberal left or any other socio/political group that is a declared enemy of God.

Bruce