Another Aunt Sevvy lie

Adventist Today's Another Aunt Sevvy Purposeful Deception or Illiterate Interpretation?

By Ron Corson

 It never ceases to amaze me how the writers over at Adventist Today lie so often. I suppose they write for a select group of people who will only agree with their writers and who won’t even bother to check out what they say. Take this for example from the anonymous Dear Aunt Sevvy:

If you don’t believe in 1844, why remain Adventist, Aunty?

One General Conference official has written that religious liberty in the church means you can leave if you don’t agree with what it officially stands for. Because he sees it only from the office at the top, he doesn’t understand what a church is. 

Here is what the article by Clifford Goldstein said back in 2013:

All this leads to the gist of what constitutes true religious freedom issues, and why I would, as Liberty editor, often tell those church members who wanted to drag us into their church disputes, "Sorry, wrong department."

Why? Because as already stated, at the most fundamental level, church affiliation is voluntary. You freely choose to be part of that body. The state, and the power of force it wields, has nothing to do with your membership. If something happens that you deem unfair, you are as free to leave that church body, just as you were to join. As long as no state coercion is involved, it's not a religious liberty issue in the classic sense.

So in fact the General Conference official was saying you can leave or join a church that is not the meaning of religious liberty. He states the meaning of religious liberty earlier in the article by saying:

This concept gets to the heart of religious liberty and church-state separation. In essence, people who join churches do so voluntarily. They are there of their own free will. They are not forced to join, and certainly not by the state. By joining a church, one publicly associates oneself, to some degree, with the teachings, mission, and goals of that church. What makes that membership meaningful is, however, the free association with that body. That association, and the public proclamation that comes merely by linking oneself to the name of the church, has potency only because one has freely chosen it. Forced membership would all but denude that proclamation of any public witness, of any testimony, public or private, regarding your convictions. You would be there because you had to be, not because you necessarily believed in what the church stood for.

John Locke, one of the patriarchs of religious freedom, wrote in 1698, in the context of religious liberty, that "I may grow rich by an Art that I take not delight in; I may be cured of some Disease by Remedies that I have not faith in; but I cannot be saved by a Religion I distrust, and by a Worship that I abhor."

It is hard to believe any thinking person could produce what the Aunt Sevvy column says. 
There was only one place in the Clifford Goldstein article that actually used the word "leave" and in that same paragraph, it says leaving your church is not religious liberty in the classic sense. Then she continues by saying that he does not understand what church is. To believe that this is just misinterpreting a fairly simple article is hard to believe. It appears that it is meant as an attack on Clifford Goldstein, without actually mentioning his name though he is a constant nemesis for the people at Adventist Today. So the answer is pretty clearly not a simple misinterpretation of the article that Aunt Sevvy linked to. No, it is an attempt to fool people into thinking someone at the General Conference said something very dumb. Of course, the writer who remains anonymous could have given the quote from the article linked to but as that would not work at all with the writer's intentions they only linked to the article hoping that if the reader actually opened the article they would see Goldstein's name and let their bias take over. 

 I am sure though if their comments section worked many would praise the column. But as of now perhaps the Adventist Today site was hacked as when you click on their link to comment it takes you to a page that says

This content isn't available right now When this happens, it's usually because the owner only shared it with a small group of people, changed who can see it or it's been deleted.

It has been a few days and I don’t think they have even noticed!

 Update: 10-12-22

So it does turn out that I have been blocked from viewing the public posts of Adventist Today. I did not think that was possible but searching the internet led me to an article on how the administrator can do that even though it is not something mentioned on FaceBook's Help Center. It did sound like it would take a bit of time but since they apparently don't edit out errors in their articles they seem to have time to do it. It does appear from the first answer in the comments that the insertion of the false information had its desired effect.

G.W. 

"This is a great reply from Aunt Sevvy!

The flip side to this conversation is, "I don't feel comfortable around the leaders of my church, and those within their circles.

They seem to be looking for ways to exclude me.

I have no problem with doctrinal differences, but being at church doesn't feel comfortable.

Can I ask those people to leave?"

 

anonymous legal expert at AToday

 

By Ron Corson

Adventist Today has gone to a new low. It presents an anonymous article called:

Playing Hopscotch with Our Liberties by Sarah Kay Jones  |  29 July 2022  |

Here is an example of this so thoughtful piece of exposition:

The establishment clause of the First Amendment prevents the federal government from establishing a state religion. I’ve already heard that the separation of church and state is not written in the Constitution, so it’s not legitimate. Included in the new civics training for Florida public school teachers is the statement that it is a “misconception” that “the Founders desired strict separation of church and state.”  

That’s the same argument given over the 2022 abortion ruling, which means that under the current Supremes majority, the establishment of religion is also at risk. That isn’t, however, what the founders of the nation taught, according to Middle Tennessee State University’s Free Speech Center:

The unknown and unintelligent author thinks that the Dobbs decision was the same argument as the rapid teachers training courses in Florida, that the wall of separation between church and state is not in the Constitution. Which of course it is not. At best it is a reference to Jefferson’s Letter: “ The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

The separation of church and state suddenly became the argument in the 2022 abortion ruling that found the court had erred in the Roe and Casey decisions. Thus finding no Constitutional authority for the so-called right to an abortion,  that right suddenly appearing a 170 years after the Constitution was ratified and a good while after the 14^th amendment and its mention of liberty and subsequent claim to the right to privacy. The syllabus for the decision shows there was no establishment of Religion application at all in the decision.

Naturally, the comments on the Facebook page praised the article. Just another example of the complete lack of understanding by the Political Progressives. Their reasoning is flawed but always fearful.

Just for clarity, the founders desired strict avoidance of Federal involvement in religion, establishing or the exercise of that religion. What the progressives mean by "strict separation of church and state”  Is always the problem and why they like the term rather than using the Establishment clause as the Constitution does.

 

 

 

The politics of emotionalism

In my previous two articles (not counting the fun one on American Pie lyrics) I have pointed out the deceptive practices of the political left in relation to the Adventist publications. Those two listed being Adventist Today and Liberty Magazine. I could and should include Spectrum Magazine (see this pathetic example) in this list as well. The troubling thing about this is that it reflects the puerile thinking of the political liberal/progressive who deal little with reality and heavily manipulate emotions. They assume that their listeners or readers are simply too stupid to think for themselves or question what they say, or they think that the reader/listener is just as prejudiced as the author. So they freely interpret usually incorrectly and with so much prejudice that their interpretations look more like arbitrary hatred then real analytical thought.

Since these gatekeepers of Adventist media have chosen to align with the political left and to use the same techniques of the left it becomes important for this blog to begin to deal with these political distortions. In the past this blog has rarely gone into political matters but it seems that they are too important to ignore since they infiltrate the church and it's leadership...even its alternative Adventist media leadership (in my opinion they have destroyed the Progressive Adventist movement).

As a particular example of the emotional manipulation of the political left here is a section from the Martin Bashir show on MSNBC as recounted by the Huffington Post:

MSNBC's Martin Bashir issued some extremely harsh words for Rick Santorum on Tuesday, comparing the GOP candidate to Joseph Stalin and Big Brother from the novel "1984." 
 
In his "Clear the Air" segment, Bashir said that watching Santorum speak before a crowd reminded him of the dictator in "1984," the classic novel about a totalitarian society under state surveillance. Bashir instructed viewers to "spot the similarities" between a clip of Santorum speaking, and footage from the movie based on the novel. 
 
He replayed clips from the film of "1984" featuring Big Brother proclaiming that "forces of darkness" must be wiped off the Earth and demanding the end of a "catalogue of bestial atrocities." Bashir contrasted them with Santorum's calls to end federal funding for contraception, among other things. "For example, he has asserted that the right to privacy does not exist and has equated same sex relationships with bestiality," Bashir added.
He then made his most severe comparison. He quoted a book reviewer who once dismissed Santorum as "one of the finest minds of the 13th century," and took the remark one step further. "If you listen carefully to Rick Santorum, he sounds more like Stalin than Pope Innocent III," Bashir said.  

You can also see the video of the segment on the Huffington Post site linked above. The similarities between Santorum and the movie 1984 is that the crowd cheers. They cheer in the movie they cheer for Santorum at a speech. Apparently Bashir has never seen any other political speeches or crowds, though you would think with the cheering and chants and fainting that occurred during Barack Obama's campaign he would have seen it at some point. He then says Santorum sounds like a theocrat and the then concludes that Santorum sounds more like Stalin then a Pope. Stalin a rather famous atheist and now I guess a theocrat at least to Bashir.

But what does Bashir report about Santorum? What quotes does he use of Santorum? Answer, none, like the authors referred to in my two previous blogs, no quotes are used, no references given, we are left to accept his interpretation of what someone said, though to Bashir's credit unlike the two previous authors mentioned Bashir at least tells us who he is interpreting, not just giving hints about some candidate running for President. Bashir could have quoted Santorum but he must have felt it was more important to play clips from the movie “1984”. That is emotionalism, and it is childish because it assumes foolish things and simplify complex issues into trite sayings. Is that something that the courts have defined or you can find in the constitution? If I do something in private does that mean I can do anything I want in private? How would you define the right to privacy? You will understand better once you actually see the quote from which Bashir is referring. Then of course you see that it is not as Bashir interprets and that Santorum does not equate homosexuality with Bestiality. Even though they could both be done in private.

From the AP interview with Rick Santorum in 2003:

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don't agree with it?

SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

Now you may not agree with Santorum's reasoning but at least he is reasoning and not simply trying to manipulate with emotionalism. We can't really allow this kind of journalism or whatever people like Bashir call themselves to continue as it is extremely harmful to thinking people. And even produces a lowering of standards for other media. Of course few people watch MSNBC but Bashir's practices are done just as often in the mainline media and now even in Church media. Maybe not as ham handed as Bashir does on his show but the appeal to emotionalism over honestly dealing with the facts and representing someone else's point of view accurately is all too common.

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 author's 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 that 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.” [Edit: 3-30-23The link is no longer active]

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 19^th 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, 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 politically biased as to not even question this kind of manipulative writing.  

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 from 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.” https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-16-02-0373

“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. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-01-02-0090

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 Wallbuilders website

The Misuse of Liberty Magazine

Over the past decade I have felt that Liberty Magazine was not really supporting liberty but anti-religious propaganda. Though most Seventh-day Adventists are religiously conservative (and many socially and politically conservative as well), Liberty Magazine has in recent years presented such conservatism as the enemy of religious liberty. I thought things had improved in the last couple years, but then I read the following from January/Febuary 2012 issue in the article entitled Religion on the Campaign Trail The Third-Party Interest by Jonathan Turley:

“With the rhetoric and rancor rising in the campaign for the White House, the election has increasingly become a call to the faithful, with candidates attempting to outdo one another in appealing to religious voters. Indeed, listening to these candidates, one could easily think this is a campaign for ecclesiastical rather than presidential office. One leading candidate recently invoked "supernatural" events guiding him and suggested that God predestined him for this office. Another candidate trumped that implied divine selection with an express promise to discriminate against Muslims to guarantee a Judeo-Christian nation.”

Of course the author, a Liberal Law professor (so characterized by “Politico” is alluding to Republican candidates so we should not expect him to be particularly fair or even reasonable. But I do expect more from Liberty magazine then such veiled allusions to candidates without even giving their names. How are we to know if his claims are even true if he won't even address who supposedly invoked supernatural events and suggested that God predestined him for “this office”? The reason is that he is not telling the truth and Liberty is publishing his falsehoods. You can search the Internet to see who suggests that supernatural events have lead in their lives. That is probably a reference to Rick Perry. Salon.com reports:

“Perry said then that “all through [my] life there have been these supernatural events.” He spoke in particular of an incident in 1978 when it rained 30 inches in his hometown following a drought, an episode he took as a sign that he should continue farming rather than becoming a commercial pilot.”

While someone seeing a divine sign in unusual rainfall should not scare us at all. Someone who saw something as a sign from God is not really that concerning if the sign is directed at them and what they as one person should do. It is not good to see our own Adventist publication making fun of a personal interpretation of God's messages to that person. Especially when our own former Mission Quarterly, and our current Junior Guide, if not many sermons, routinely demonstrate the same world view I was unable to find any reference that Rick Perry suggested that God predestined him for any office. But the editors of Liberty would not need to know the truth or the facts of a statement if no identity is given by the author. This is extremely sloppy journalism.

The second unnamed candidate is apparently Michele Bachmann who Turney misinterprets as “trumped that implied divine selection with an express promise to discriminate against Muslims to guarantee a Judeo-Christian nation.” What is that based on? Besides being a literary nightmare of a sentence “trumped”, “implied divine selection”? Go ahead look up the definition of “trumped”. What did Michael Bachmann actually say? You can read it in the transcript of Michele Bachmann’s speech at the Twin Cities megachurch Living Word Christian Center in 2006:

“Twenty-two months ago, He called me to run for United States Congress. And my husband thought, you need to do this. This is a big deal to do something like this. So we set aside three days where we fasted and we prayed, and long about the afternoon of day two, we knew. We knew that we knew that we knew. This was it. And so we jumped in, and little did we know that out of 435 seats for Congress, this race would turn in to being one of the top three in the country. And that how this race turns will probably determine what majority is in Congress this fall. [sic]

We are sitting right now at a time in our history when we’re going to be dealing with some of the most important issues of our time. Number one being, which your pastor is going to be talking about in the next few weeks, radical Islam. How will our nation deal with this threat of radical Islam? There’s so much at stake, but we listen to the Lord and we decide we’re going to suit up, we’re going to sign up, we’re going to be hot for God, and we’re going to do what He is calling us to do! And we’re going to watch out and see what He is going to perform in our midst.

And that’s what it’s all about when He makes our calling sure. It isn’t about us. It’s about Him. And it’s about freeing each one of us up to do His will for His glory so that He will be magnified! And that’s His calling. It’s sure. I commend to you to listen carefully to the truth of His word that He will bless you with as your pastor comes and speaks to you this morning.”

Her Description of what it means to be hot can also be read in the transcript:

“I’m 50 years old. I came to know Him when I was 16. For 34 years, I’ve been hot! And you want to be hot! Because when you are hot for Jesus Christ, there is nothing that is like that life! It is the most exciting life! When you are praying in the spirit, when you are meditating on his word, when you are fellowshipping with white-hot believers, He turns your life around. And it isn’t just for you. It’s for the world! He changes the world through hot people!” 
 
Bachmann's reference to “Radical Islam” to Turley and by extension Liberty magazine becomes discriminate against Muslims to guarantee a Judeo-Christian nation. Sure it is not what she said, not even implied but when one is a confirmed political liberal it may not be worth their time to be accurate or truthful. Time is better spent upon propaganda. I understand Jonathan Turley's misuse of information I accept it as the animus of the partisanship of the political liberal against the conservative. But why is it included a religious liberty magazine of the Adventist church?

My guess is the reason is the same as we see here on the Adventist today Website by certain columnists: Prophetic Prognostication. The fear based upon the belief that Christianity will rise against Seventh-day Adventism. That non Adventist Christians will soon act as the Beast of the book of Revelation. A fear 200 hundred years out of date. But with implications as current as today, where fear and prejudice engender defamation of fellow Christians not because of what they say or do but because they are simply Christians of a different tribe.

Sunday Law preoccupation among Adventists

In a Recent letter to the Adventist Review Claude Morgan, Religious Liberty director
Greater New York Conference Manhasset, New York writes the following:

I enjoyed Michael D. Peabody’s article, “Sundae Laws” (Jul. 24, 2008). Even though I have followed the subject of Sunday laws with interest for many years, I found a lot of interesting information that was new to me. I am concerned, however, that readers might reach the wrong conclusion if they read too much into Peabody’s remark, “Most Sunday Laws are no longer enforced and are generally viewed as anachronistic.”

For years I also have been saying, “Nobody is interested in Sunday laws but Adventists.” But that is no longer true. The reality is that a renewed climate favorable to Sunday laws has been developing quietly. Two examples: In its August 2, 2004 issue, Time Magazine featured a column by Nancy Gibbs titled “And on the Seventh Day We Rested,” which nostalgically eulogized Sunday Laws. In 2006, Christianity Today, one of the most
prestigious religious periodicals in the country, also ran a column contending that Sunday laws would correct the ills of society.

While Sunday laws are not a center of focus for most people today, the climate of our culture is definitely becoming a fertile seedbed for their rebirth.

Personally I doubt his exclamation that he had been saying for years that “Nobody is interested in Sunday laws but Adventists.” Especially when citing the Christianity Today article. The article in no way indicated that there was any reason to introduce further Sunday laws, in fact it includes this quote:

"Blue laws fell because they became politically untenable," said Bradley Jacob, associate law professor at Regent University. "Not only did non-Christians find them unfair, but even Christians found them silly, archaic, and legalistic."

The article was more a news article which covered a research project. As the Article begins:

Church attendees become more likely to use drugs and drink heavily when states abolish "blue laws." So says a recent study, "The Church vs. the Mall: What Happens When Religion Faces Increased Secular Competition?" The study also found that weekly church attendance and church giving decline after states repeal blue laws, which restrict commerce and labor on Sundays.

"They aren't quitting whole hog," said Daniel Hungerman, a study author and assistant professor of economics at the University of Notre Dame. Instead, those who attend weekly might go monthly, and monthly attendees might show up just at Christmas and Easter. While church giving decreased, the study found other charities saw a corresponding increase in donations.

When a blue law is in place, non-church-goers are about 10 percent more likely to drink heavily than churchgoers. After blue laws are repealed, the gap closes to about 5 percent.

For marijuana and cocaine use, the gap nearly disappears. Non-churchgoers are 11 percent more likely to smoke pot while blue laws are in place. After repeal, the two groups look almost the same.

Other than the title, there is nothing to support Religious Liberty Director’s statement that Christianity Today “ran a column contending that Sunday laws would correct the ills of society.”

Neither does the Time article in any way call for Sunday laws, it mainly bemoans the busy lifestyle of modern America. As the concluding paragraphs state:

With progress, of course, comes backlash from those who desperately want to preserve the old ways. Mom-and-pop liquor stores in New York fought to keep the blue laws to have more time with their families. Car dealers in Kansas City, Mo., pushed for a law to make them close on Sundays so they could have a day off without losing out to competition. Chick-Fil-A, a chain of more than 1,100 restaurants in 37 states, closes on Sundays because its founder, Truett Cathy, promised employees time to "worship, spend time with family and friends or just plain rest from the work week," says the chain's website. "Made sense then, still makes sense now." Pope John Paul II even wrote an apostolic letter in defense of Sunday: "When Sunday loses its fundamental meaning and becomes merely part of a 'weekend,'" he wrote, "people stay locked within a horizon so limited that they can no longer see 'the heavens.'"

In an age with no free time, we buy it through hard choices. Do we skip church so we can sleep in or skip soccer so we can go to church or find a family ritual — cook together, read together, a Parcheesi challenge — that we treat as sacred? That way, at least some part of Sunday faces in a different direction, whether toward heaven or toward one another.

Nothing in modern America promotes the idea of Sunday laws to cause people to attend worship services on Sunday or prohibit Worship services on Saturday. For a Religious Liberty Director to make such statements as that in the above letter is to speak from a poorly informed and generally foolish position.

As to the Review Article on Sundae Laws; it is not freely available on the web other then the first paragraphs. Those sentences lead me to think the story does not give the full information about the origin of Sundae’s as that is still a hotly debated subject between Ithaca NY and Two Rivers, Wisconsin. Naturally being Adventist the Sunday Law idea is preferred: What few people realize about this simple dessert, however, is that it was actually invented as a loophole to avoid stringent Sunday laws that prevented the sale of “soda water” during the late 1800s -- http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=1994

Strange Bedfellows, Adventists and Philip Morris

SDA’s partner with Phillip Morris and Tobacco State Representatives and declare themselves on the side of right.

Speaking of the win in the Senate this last week James Standish writes on SDAnet:

I was discussing the impending vote with coalition colleagues yesterday, and in that discussion I noted that Adventists have been leading this charge for a long, long time now. Indeed, we could say that along with the Methodists, we invented this movement. It is wonderful that each of us has been able to play our part in keeping this flame alive. The other side has the money, the influence, all the tricks of their trade, but we have right on our side and we will never, ever, ever give up!

Earlier this week on the Liberty Blog Standish wrote in part:

Vote on Our Tobacco Bill this Week!

Dear Friends of Freedom:

This is an urgent appeal. For years, Seventh-day Adventists have worked diligently and persistently to protect our children and our society from the predatory practices of big tobacco. Now we finally have a vote scheduled in the U.S. House of Representatives.

So who is in this coalition of right and why do they think that the government needs to pay 12 Billion dollars to pay out Tobacco farmers.

From CBS News

An unlikely coalition of anti-smoking advocates and tobacco-state senators pushed to secure the 78-15 vote to add the twin measures to a massive corporate tax bill that the Senate then passed on a voice vote and sent to a House-Senate conference committee.

The House-passed tax bill includes a plan to pay tobacco farmers to leave the federal tobacco-growing system but does not give the FDA any new powers. Health groups hailed the Senate action.

The FDA asserted authority over cigarettes in 1996, but the Supreme Court later ruled that only Congress can give the FDA that power.

Philip Morris USA is the only major tobacco company to support FDA regulation of cigarettes. Company executives say it could better communicate with customers about new, safer products in a regulated environment with clear, uniform rules.

The other major tobacco companies say the new advertising restrictions would make it harder for them to gain new customers while ensuring that Philip Morris retains its market share.

Those companies have supported the House buyout approach, which isn't linked to FDA regulation and would pay farmers $9.6 billion over five years with taxpayer money.

The $12 billion farmer buyout approved by the Senate would be paid for by an assessment on the companies.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, was the lead sponsor of the Senate buyout. He called it "vital to the future livelihoods of our tobacco farmers and their families."

So is this really some kind of right side that gives corporate welfare to tobacco growers and sides with the largest Tobacco companies in the United States. Tobacco which is normally grown as an annual plant; means that it is planted and harvested yearly and thus not a long term plant or tree does not really seem to at first glance need a buyout for tobacco farmers. In other words the land that tobacco grows on can be used for other crops at the desire of the farmer. So now we see why the Tobacco state representatives are voting for this bill. 12 billion dollars from the federal government, that is you and me to a few Tobacco growing states is good for their economy.

U.S. Tobacco Subsidies in United States totaled $530 million from 1995-2006.

At the same time the U.S has required warning labels on cigarettes since 1966 and the warning message was last updated in 1984, yet we subsidize it’s growth and marketing and now want to spend even more in a proposed buyout of farmers to stop growing something that the Federal government has subsidized and advertised as hazardous to smoker’s health.

Is that what government is for? Is it really the best way for SDA’s groups like the North American Religious Liberty Association to be joining forces with Philip Morris and Tobacco State Representatives and claim that they are on the side of right.

The following conversation took place in the debate over this bill and is relayed by the Courier-Journal, it is rather telling as it displays the difference between government bureaucracy verses the nanny state, and which side is really about freedom.

We offer this strange exchange between House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. The edited transcript from The Congressional Record follows:

"Mr. BOEHNER … Now this bill has been hanging around here for 15 years. For 15 years, we've been trying to move this piece of legislation. We're going to charge the tobacco companies about $5 billion over the next few years to pay for a bureaucracy here in Washington so we can regulate tobacco.

"Now, listen. Most of my colleagues know that I smoke. I know that smoking is probably not good for my health. Most people who smoke in America know that smoking is probably not good for their health. Do we need the federal government to tell us? Do we need to spend $5 billion of smokers' money for the government to tell us that smoking is not good for us? I don't think so ... Frankly, the whole idea that the federal government ought to regulate more and more and more of our lives just gets under my skin.

"I have great respect for my colleague from Michigan. He is a great member of Congress, and we've worked together on a lot of issues, but this is a bone-headed idea … We've already got labels on cigarettes. You've got some companies that might as well put a billboard on a pack of cigarettes so that you know that it's bad for you. I can imagine what will happen after we get more government regulations on this issue.

"I would just ask my colleagues: How much is enough? How much regulation and how much government and how much bureaucracy do we need before we finally say, 'Enough is enough?' Let's stop. Let's vote against this bill.

"Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds for the purpose of responding to my beloved friend, the minority leader.

"This legislation is on the floor because people are killing themselves by smoking these evil cigarettes. The distinguished gentleman, the minority leader, is going to be amongst the next to die. I am trying to save him, as the rest of us are, because he is committing suicide every time he puffs on one of those things."