The land of the free-to-torture

By James Coffin, senior pastor of the Markham Woods church.

This appeared in the Orlando Sentinel today.

I would have never believed it possible had you told me in the fall of 1959 -- the beginning of my formal education -- that in the year 2007 I'd be reading a rash of newspaper headlines about a U.S. attorney general-designate's uncertainty concerning what constitutes torture.

   Or, worse still, that a Democrat-controlled Senate would confirm him despite his uncertainties.

Now don't get me wrong. In 1959, I wasn't some kind of child prodigy with deep political and moral insights. Not at all. I was just a run-of-the-mill American kid experiencing school for the first time.

That year, on the day after Labor Day, I not only placed my hand over my heart and pledged allegiance to "one nation under God," but I also learned how to seek shelter under my desk should the Russians start dropping bombs. That day I was introduced to a world of good government versus bad government. And it made an impression.

   Over the next few years I learned a lot as I moved through the eight grades and two rooms of that little country schoolhouse.

I learned the significance of the ubiquitous fallout-shelter symbols I'd seen in the basements of public buildings. I learned about the stored provisions that would sustain us should the Russians launch a nuclear attack.

I learned about the evils of godless, oppressive, coercive communism and the merits of democracy and capitalism and a nation willing to base its actions on the Judeo-Christian ethic.

I learned those lessons well. But increasingly I wrestle with the disquieting possibility that my government no longer shares the ideals and the vision I had instilled in me so effectively as a child.

   In class, we studied the history of our government -- a government "of the people, by the people and for the people."

In class, we learned that all humans "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." We learned about due process -- even for bad guys. We learned about the presumption of innocence. We learned that it was better to have a standard so high that the occasional guilty person goes free rather than to risk punishing the innocent.

In those country-schoolhouse classes, we repeatedly contrasted the virtues of the U.S. form of government with the obvious shortfalls of many other governments. We took pride in the role the United States had played in bringing about worldwide improvements through such documents as the Geneva Conventions.

We learned that there are some actions to which Americans won't stoop simply because the actions are wrong -- categorically. They violate self-evident, unalienable human rights -- no matter how advantageous they might be in the short term.

   Was it all just propaganda? Whistling in the dark? Wishful thinking?

   Or do some of our nation's major players need a refresher course in a little country schoolhouse in the Midwest?

If you care about this issue and what to magnify your moral voice, check out the National Religious Campaign Against Torture.

Comments

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Elder Coffin

I always enjoy your contributions to Spectrum.

Here is a little personal history.

Victims

The campaign for Luzon was almost over. One of our regiments was pulled out of the line after receiving very heavy casualties in the Hills Bam Bam during the battle for Clark Field. We were exhausted from days of patching up the victims of hate and fear from both sides.

Besides our own wounded, we received Filipino guerrilla fighters who had been strung up by their thumbs and used for bayonet practice. I watched them die as their lungs slowly filled with blood. We received Japanese soldiers captured by the guerrillas who had methodically cut across all major tendons of the hands, wrist, elbows, knees, and ankles.

This quiet afternoon, the ambulance delivered two Japanese soldiers beaten from one end to the other with heavy clubs. They were covered with bruises, abrasion, their eyes and mouths were swollen almost shut, but they were still conscious.

I was the medic assigned to care for the wounded and injured before surgery. The triage officer knelt beside the litter and started to examine the prisoners. As he got to the legs, he grabbed them roughly and began to twist and pull and then tried to make a sawing motion. I said, “Sir, why are you doing that? Look how much it is hurting.” He said, “I’m checking for fractures.” I said, “We don’t check our men that way.” He said, “If it weren’t for these bastards, I’d be back in the Bronx making a damn good living.” I said, “They are just as much victims as we are.” He said, “Soldier, you are out of order. I’m in charge here. That will be all.” He did stop his examination.

[David Hamstra]

As Tom points out, we have to realize of the America of Jim's childhood is an ideal that never was. Nevertheless, I didn't see this day or moral vicissitude coming either. I also recommend the NRCAT.

[Nic Samojluk]

Those terrorists who were subjected to the Waterboarding torture are still alive, and they may eventually regain their freedom. The fifty million we tortured to death inside their mother's womb are gone for good.

Our SDA Church in the U.S. is not growing. How can it grow if our SDA women are aborting the future generation of Adventists at the same rate the general population is destroying their future progeny?

We have sanctified therapeutic abortions. Since when poisoning and dismembering the unborn baby can be rightly described as therapy. It kills the baby and we call it therapy?

A former president of the GC told us in 1970 that our church was leaning towards abortion because there was "too much hunger and overpopulation in the world." He said this in the richest country of the world! Can you believe this?

It has been reported that five of our hospitals were performing elective abortions a few years ago. This with the blessing of the "Remnant Church," the one taking pride in keeping "God's Commandments!"

If God's Remnant Church is participating in the slaughter of the innocents, then who is the "Beast of Revelation": the one justifying this mass murder or the one who condemns such barbaric actions?

Not long ago, the German and Austrian SDA leaders apologized for the church's cooperation with the Nazi regime while the genocide was taking place. Are we blind to the fact that we may have to eventually issue a similar apology in the future regarding our cooperation with those dedicated to the destruction of the unborn?

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

True there are no illegitimate children, only illegitimate parents. If a nation, if a church, if an individual believes it must "protect" the unborn. Just think of the responsibility to raise that infant to a healthy productive God fearing adult. Food, clothing, education, protection from abuse, acceptance in the community etc. No one but a few Catholic convents have assumed that task. Just take a look at the street children of Rio de Janeiro to see would anti-abortion does without civic responsibility for the consequences. What I want to know is where the Church stands on aid to dependant children! Tom

[Anonymous]

Tom,

Thank you. (I would add to your comments, "where does the church stand on women's issues," as well.)

[Nic Samojluk]

Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer:

Are you talking from personal experience or from theory? Have you ever gone hungry for long periods of time? Have ever got up in the morning to discover that there was no food in the pantry and no milk, and the only thing you had to chew on was green onions from your mother's vegetable garden?

Have you ever waken up in the morning and discovered that you could not get out of bed because the only pair of pants had been washed by your mother, and you had to wait til they got dry?

Have you ever had to go from door to door reselling produce, realizing you could not eat them because your mother needed the money to buy bread and milk? Have you ever had to be awake all night because it was raining and the thatched roof leaked everywhere?

If you haven't, I have. And you are suggesting that I would be better dead! Tell this to my children and grandchildren, and see if they will buy your Nazi generated theory!

I would like to end with the following story: A hungry child knocked on a door, but was sent away empty handed. He knocked on another door, and this Nazi inspired man thought: "This hungry child would be better dead. So he killed him and solved the hunger problem. On judgment day, which man would dealt harshly by the Lord?

[Anonymous]

Nic,

I have too. And I have yet to compare desperate girls who have no support system to the Third Reich.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Nic

I don't think you read too well. Tom

[David Hamstra]

Nic:

One right doesn't justify a wrong. Abortion as a form of birth control may be wrong, but that doesn't make it right to leave those kids with no social safety net.

Also, I have no interest in getting into a who's-suffered-more-and-therefore-has-the-right-to-speak contest. Let's keep that version of holier than thou to a minimum.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Nic

Please follow the numbers.

1. The Government of Brazil bans both birth control and abortion.
2. It also refuses to support unwanted children.
3. Those which survive weaning become feral children—the multitude of waifs of the World that would make David Copperfield a benign tale.
4. If one takes the moral position to ensure every embryo becomes a live birth, then one must also take the moral position to see that all neonates becomes a productive member of society regardless of origin.
5. Unless you are willing to take responsibility from the womb to the tomb, then you can not find a middle ground to condemn those who choose not to carry an embryo to term.
6. Since you wanted to enter into a pissing contest:

a. Our family has adopted eight unwanted infants and pre-teens.
b. Our family of six lived on 5 dollars a week during the Great Depression. Even then no one left our door hungry.
c. I was a 10 hour a day farm hand from the age of 10. 12-15 cents an hour.
d. I peddled Peaches, Apples, Tomatoes, Newspapers, yes even Baker Boy Soda Crackers to pay my way through Emmanuel Missionary College Academy and the first two years of College.
e. I have taken students on at least 8 month long missionary trips to three Caribbean countries.
f. I have paid a double tithe for 58 of my 82 years.
g. Two of my children have Doctorates, one a Master’s and two with Baccalaureate degrees. I am in the process of putting two more through their college majors.
h. No one leaves my door without an invitation to sit, rest, talk, and be refreshed with water, soft drinks, snacks. Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses—(but not magazine sales men)
i. In that lifetime, I have been cursed by only army noncoms, and SDA bigots. Tom

[Nic Samojluk]

David:

My point was that hunger hurts, but it might be a temporary situation. Execution by either poisoning or dismemberment is 100 times more horrible, and the consequences are irreversible. You can eventually feed a hungry child. You cannot feed one that has been killed!

I have just received an E-mail from Dr. Ronald Noltze, and he assures me that none of the SDA hospitals under his supervision in Europe, Africa and South America were doing abortions while he was in charge of them.

This means that providing abortion services by SDA physicians seems to be an American phenomenon. At one time five SDA hospitals were reported as performing not only therapeutic abortions, but elective ones as well. And let us remember that abortion is no therapy for the unborn child!

I wonder whether those who justify abortion as a therapy would accept such therapy for themselves. It is easy to prescribe such therapy for others!

Nic

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Nic

Why are you so quick to judge another? I don't support abortion as a solution to a desire. I do believe that the life of the mother has priority over the embryo. My wife had a miscarraige in 1953. We still count that little one in our prayers. You have every right to reject abortion as a solution to your families problems. But unless you are willing to support unwanted children keep your mouth shut on the morality of others. Tom

[Anonymous]

Nic,

I think another issue at hand here is why you would say in the homosexuality thread that small children want to be raped for candy and favors. I think you'd better respond to that, and quickly. It was a disgusting, horrible thing to say. Shame on you! Child rape is an abominable, violent crime.

[Nic Samojluk]

Tom:

I was responding to David's comments, and you erroneously concluded that I was judging you! You asked: "Nic: Why are you so quick to judge another?" I was not thinking about you when I wrote that!

You state that you do not support abortion, but then you clarify that the life of the mother is superior to the life of the unborn child! Do you mean that the life of Mary was superior to the life of Jesus, her unborn child?

My position is that all humans possess equal value in God's estimation, regardless of their size or place of residence!

It is very easy for someone to claim that he is pro-life, and then name the exceptions under which he is willing to justify abortion. This is precisely what we have done as a church!

Our GC president did exactly that when he publicly declared that the SDA Church is pro-life, and then proceeded to clarify that we are under strict Guidelines. If you read those Guidelines, you discover that we allow not only for "therapeutic" abortions but even when the mental health of the pregant woman is affected.

Well, have you ever seen a pregnant woman who was not planning to become pregnant to be free from temporary depression? If we allow for all these exceptions, does the term pro-life apply to a church?

Catholic hospitals do not offer abortion services, but we do, and five of them were offering elective abortions. One of them was described by a GC official as an "abortion mill!" Yet we like the world to think that we are pro-life!

You stated: "But unless you are willing to support unwanted children keep your mouth shut on the morality of others."

I have read all you have done for children, and I am impressed. The Lord will reward you for your unselfish service for those in need. Nevertheless, I cannot agree with you that the life of the unborn is inferior to the life of the pregnant woman.

You seem to suggest that all those neglected children in Brasil would be better dead than alive. If this is what you intended to convey, then I cannot support your position. Killing an unborn child on the premise that said child may suffer neglect in the future is immoral.

I had the privilege of helping a boy who was the son of a prostitute, and he used to pick scraps of food from trash cans. We helped him until he graduated from our college in Argentina. We even sponsored his wedding and his children grew up to become useful members of the church. To suggest that he would have been better dead because of his temporary deprivation is anathema in my book!

May the good Lord continue to bless you in your unselfish ministry!

Nic

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Nic
Your logic system seems to be on hold. You attempt to spin me into a position in which you can attack me. For what I don't know. If a medical situations arises in which death is imminent and if intervention can save one but not both, then the priority of the Mother exceeds that of the fetus. That is Medcial Ethics 101. How you can twist that to make me pro-choice is amazing. This week end, I and my wife are mourning the death of a much younger sister-in-law after a six year fight of ovarian cancer. Yet you would paint me as an angel of death. If what you have is religion. I don't want any part of it. Tom

[concerned]

Nic is weak. He would allow women who have had abortions to attend our churches. The only Godly thing to do would be to stone these women alongside homosexuals and adulterers.

Our church is going to have to apologize one day for not respecting and protecting life.

[Nic Samojluk]

Tom:

Evidently you are misinterpreting what I said. When I compared abortion to what Hitler did, I was not thinking about you. I was referring to those who defend the slaughter of the innocents, and in a special way those who practice elective abortions. I even made reference to a GC president who stated that our church was leaning towards abortion because there was "too much hunger and overpopulation in the world."

If you are pro-life, then automatically you are excluded from any derogatory statements I made regarding abortion. Of course, if you believe that taking the life of the innocents is morally acceptable, then the reverse might be true.

If you believe that I am attacking you when I condemn the practice of abortion, then perhaps you are not pro-life. If you are pro-life, there is no reason for you taking offense. I don't know this, except for the statements you have made about yourself, and I have already commended you for what you have and are doing on behalf of those who are in need.

There is a historical nexus between abortion and Hitler's decision to marginalize a group of human beings and to exterminate them. You need to read the history of abortion and how it started.

History has demonstrated that those who engage in the mass killing innocent human beings do not fare well in the long run. King Pharao order the drowning of the male children of the Israelites and he perished by drowning. King Herod ordered the slaughter of young children in Bethlehem and was eaten by worms. Hitler slaughtered six miilion Jews and ended by taking his own life. The U.S. legalized the genocide of the unborn and will pay the price dearly.

Not long ago the German and Austrian leaders of the SDA Church apologized for the church's cooperation with the Nazi regime. Now we are cooperating with those determined to destroy the unborn at will. Unless we repent as a church, God's judgment will fall on us as well.

Taking the life of innocent human beings is instigated by the one who has been "a murderer from the beginning." I want to have not part with such a policy. And do not forget that I am not attacking you, but rather the erroneous ideas of those who defend the practice of abortion. You are free to defend abortion or not. This is your choice.

I have no idea where you stand on abortion. Nevertheless, the moment you seem to suggest that the life of the mother takes priority over the life of the unborn, then I have to disagree. For me both have equal value. Only God could determine whther one of the two has a higher moral value. I can't, and I doubt that you can. I do not believe in your Ethics 101.

I had a long debate with Dr. Sean Pitman, who believes that an abortion before the 20th week of pregnancy is no more than the removal of an appendix. I highly respect this man for his stand on other issues, but I cannot agre with him on this.

When I asked him whether Mary had the right to abort Baby Jesus before the 20th week of pregnancy, he said, "Of course." Well, this is not in my Ethics 101.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Nic

It is vain to extenuate the matter. You would not abort but you would assign to hell anyone you disagreed with you. Sounds a lot like Hitler to me. Tom

[David Hamstra]

Pro-life v. Pro-choice. No room for nuance or reasoning here.

But if we're going to be consistent pro-lifers we also need to support...

the pacifist movement.

the end of the death penalty.

AIDS prevention programs.

social programs to feed and clothe children.

[Nic Samojluk]

To Tom:

Please indicate what statement of mine lead you to believe that I would "assign to hell" anybody who disagreed with me! Have you forgotten what Jesus said to the woman caught in the act of adultery? Did he "assign her to hell"? Not so! Acording to my Bible He said to her: "Go and sin no more!" That is my philosophy.

This is why I stated that unless our church repents from justifying abortion, she will have to pay dearly. In fact, she is already beginning to pay the price. The American SDA church is not growing.

To "Concerned":

I am still trying to figure out what message you tried to convey with your comments. Nevertheless, I appreciate what you said, because it gives me a chance to explain my position regarding what society should do with women who kill their unborn.

Experience has demonstrated that it is very difficult to convict a woman who has aborted her baby. Who is going to denounce the crime and testify against her? The most practical approach is to go after the abortionists.

Don't forget that there are still many countries in the world where abortion is illegal, and women who are not ready or able to raise their children have only one alternative: adoption. And remember that abortion was condemned both by the church and by society for two thouand years. Abortion is a new experiment by the Western culture and may eventually go the way of slavery.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Ni

May God bless you and keep you. May His face shine upon you and give you peace! Amen Tom

[Nic Samojluk]

Dear Anonymous:

Sorry about my delay in responding to your comment! Yes, I did state on another thread dealing with homosexuality that young innocent children are an easy prey for child abusers. These morally corrupt men can buy their victims with a trinket or a candy.

I am not ashamed of having said this because I know first hand that these anecdotes are based on fact. In certain countries of the world where small children have been deprived of afection and even food, candies, and toys; sexual predators know quite well that they can entice these innocent victims to tolerate abuse in exchange for affection, candies or toys.

Suggesting from what I stated that "small children want to be raped for candy and favors" is a big stretch that is not warranted by the text of my posting! Were you working fron my original posting or rather from what you imagined I had stated?

As you can see, there is no reason for me to be ashamed about what I had posted on said thread!

[Nic Samojluk]

David:

I do not support the death penalty for another reason: The penalty is final, and there is no recourse if later on a DNA shows that the executed man was in fact innocent.

Nevertheless, in the event we could be 100 percent sure that the murderer did commit the crime, then if society were to execute him, there would still be a night and day contrast between his exedution and the execution of a totally innocent victim.

You cannot compare the killing of a murderer with the execution of the unborn! The contrast between the two is so patent that no additional comments are needed, I believe.

I do agree with you that feeding and clothing the needy is a sacred duty.The same is true about our need to show compassion for those aflicted with the AIDS plague. That is what Jesus and Mother Theresa did so well.

Nevertheless, we should not use our society's neglect of these sacred duties to justify the killing of the unborn. I will repeat what I have already stated above: A hungry child can eventually be fed. A dead child will never taste a cbocolate bar or hear the words: "I love you!"

[arlyn]

1. May I interrupt this line on abortion to refer back to the original article?

All questions on torture need to appeal to a moral foundation. Does God use torture? Or are "trials" the appropriate word only because the motive is benign for the same allowed/inflicted suffering? Then is torture considered sadistic, or humane depending on who you are trying to save (back to motives)? Or is torture merely a definition of certain acts... regardless of motive.

Happy Veterans Day, everyone...for those willing to risk torture and death for everyone else who won't.

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

Arlyn,
I'll join you in your on-topic commenting by saying how much I liked this well-timed article by Pr. Coffin.

Water boarding is indeed torture. Our use of torture is as much an indictment of our own morality as torturers as it is a reflection on the barbarity of the actions committed or to-be committed by those we torture.

[Nic Samojluk]

Waterboarding is physical and mental torture. Nevertheless, for the sake of fairnes, it must be contrasted with the murders, maiming, and beheading of innocent individuals by the terrorists.

The aim of waterboarding is to save the life of our soldiers and our allies. The aim of the murderous acts perpetrated by the terrorists is the indiscriminate killing and maiming of human being for the sake of the advancement of their political and religious agenda.

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

Nic,
Wow. That really amazes me.

Looking at your comments on this tread I can't resist asking if you feel that, for the sake of fairness as you put it, the murder of abortion providers should be contrasted with the holocaust of abortion (as I've heard you call it).

Or, how consistent are your comments?

[Anonymous]

Since Nic insisted I bring this from the other thread:

"Children to not feel they are harmed when older man get physically intimate with them, unless they are trained to avoid physical contact with adults. The trauma usually blossoms when they get older.

Many older men sexually abuse small children and feel there is no harm. They feel there is a fair mutually accepted fair exchange. They satisfy their sexual deviant cravings, and the children get what they like: atencion, candies or a trinket."

First, there isn't a single culture that considers child rape okay. Yes, in India it is not okay to rape children. An old man may marry a child but she must reach an admissible age before they engage in intercourse. Just read Phoolan Devi's autobiography.

Perhaps Nic had best do some more studying. I work with abuse victims. While it is true that it often takes some time for trauma to manifest I can name many "third world" children who passed out when being raped.

Nic, you used very subtle language but you seem to disregard the seriousness of child rape. A child's vagina and anus is very small. When a child--male or female, Western or Eastern--is raped, they quite often pass out because there is ripping and blood. I'm disturbed at your candy coating of child rape. (Let's not use euphemisms like pedophilia and molestation or physically intimate here. It is a disgrace to utilise the word intimate in stead of the word rape. There is nothing intimate about rape. It's violent and abhorrent and intrinsically harmful.) Your use of language signifies you think that there was consent or wish on the child's part. Subtle? Yes. But it is there. And I'm appalled.

[Ian Gramm]

Torture unfortunately is a necessary tool for fighting the war on terror. The reason for them being so ambiguous is to shield us from the harsh reality of what really is being to done to protect us. Thank you president Bush for making our Christian nation a safe one.

[Anonymous]

Ian,

I was unaware that our country had a national religion. How do you come by the description of "Christian nation?"

[Nic Samojluk]

Johnny:

Yes, I am willing to contrast what Hitler did with what we are doing. Hitler decided to exterminate the unproductive members of society and the WWI amputees under duress. His country was at war, and he felt there was a need to save food for the soldiers on the front lines who were dying like flies in Russia and elsewhere.

We on the other hand decided to exterminate the innocent in the richest land on the earth where food is so abundant we don't know what to do with it.

Hitler exterminated his six million. We have exterminated almost ten times as much so far. Hitler killed in times of war. We kill in times of peace. He killed so that the his soldiers could survive. We kill without provocation. He killed those he considered to be his enemies. We kill our own children, our own flesh and blood.

On judgment day our crime will be dealt with more severity than Hitler's crimes, I believe. "From those who were given more, more will be required."

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

You avoided my question. You say that torture of terrorists is to "save the life". You contrast that with the aims of terrorists which you describe as murderous.

My question was if this permissive view justifying torture of terrorists could be translated to the abortion discussion.

If you see violence aimed at stopping abortion doctors from practicing as morally justified. Be it harassment, torture or murder.

If terrorism offends you to the point where you'd say torture is morally justified, and abortion is in your opinion one of the most morally offensive acts our society engages in, does it follow that you believe killing abortion doctors is a morally just act?

[Nic Samojluk]

Dear Anonymous:

I agree with you entirely about the awfullness of child abuse. I have no idea where you find reason to disagree with me. I merely explained a fact of life in some undeveloped countries where innocent children fall an easy prey for predators.

What I stated about some children who have tolerated sexual abuse in exchange for candies and trinkets is based on factual anecdotes I received from credible sources. I was talking about boys between seven and ten. In the cases I am referring there were no reports of extreme pain or physical trauma. I wish I could exagerate for the sake of my cause against child abuse, but my morals prevent me from fabricating.

Evidently you are privy to other cases with different results. This information is very valuable, but I am not in possession of such. Will you fault me for being factual instead of attempting to twist the facts?

Let's wok together for the eradication of these predaotry practices, instead of trying to destroy the credibility of those who should work in harmony.

By the way, I wonder why you prefer to remain anonymous!

[Alexander]

One of the hopes that I have for this blog and for our church is that we avoid personal attacks and simple-minded binaries. Thirty years of the abortion wars hasn't cut the unfortunate number of unwanted pregnancies or the poverty rate.

Nic, the Spectrum community is full of serious, ethical medical professionals who have saved a lot of lives. If you're going to accuse, you'd better back it up with facts. And maybe conversations with those involved in those decisions.

One of the marks of people who really care about human life is that they go out of their way to understand the motives of those who make different choices.

And often there is grace to be found and shared in those back stories.

[Nic Samojluk]

Johnny:

Thanks for clarifying your question. First I must make it clear that when I contrasted waterboarding with abortion, I did not approve the morality of the waterboarding type of torture. I merely contrasted the degree of moral evil between those two types of torture.

When Jesus stated that the inhabitants of Sodom would condemn his generation, he did not justify the actions of the Sodomites.

Regarding killing the providers of abortion, the Bible states that the sword was given to the government, and not to individual citizens. When Peter drew his sword, Jesus scolded him for doing so.

The day abortion becomes illegal, then the government will be able to go after those engaged in the devilish busniness of killing the most innocent members of society for profit.

[Nic Samojluk]

Dear Alexander:

I agree! The SDA Church and Loma Linda University have done and are doing a lot of good deeds on behalf of humanity.

At the same time the church has made the big mistake of justifying abortion, and at one time five of our hospitals were offering elective abortions according to an official survey.

You asked for facts. These facts are documented in my doctoral dissertation and a couple of slide presentations I have prepared so far. The Internet links are:

http://www.sdaforum.com/page13.html

http://www.sdaforum.com/page14.html

Please, identify which facts I have made reference to in this blog you want me to document, and I'll be glad to do this.

By the way, most of the documentation I used in my doctoral dissertation came from credible sources. The main source was our official "Ministry" magazine.

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

I would suggest that perhaps our government is not like Rome- it is not imposed. We in this representative democratic republic elect our leaders and their actions are validated or repudiated in the voting booth. For us the governments sword is wielded in our name- we collectively share moral responsibilities for the policies our elected officials enact on our behalf.

But moreover, am I to understand that you are against abortion but in favor of the death penalty?

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Nic

Best your cotten pick'n heart. I thank God daily that you have just as good a standing before God that I do but none better.

Just keep in mind your arguments are neither moral, logical, nor pertinent to the thread.
Neither torture nor abortion are a solution to man's problems. In medical ethics, one must make the best choice out of a bad situation. No arm chair theologian has the right to an opinion outside of the immediate environment. Read all the books you like, Pray all the prays you wish. When it comes to the moment to decide. It is the one with the power to heal who must make the choice. My prayers are forever with him/her. To prejudge is arrogance beyond belief. Tom

[Anonymous]

Nic,

Children who are abused are NOT at fault, whether it's you or me NONE OF US are at fault. Little boys don't ask to be raped. They don't have the mental and emotional facilities to understand the meaning of "sexual intimacy." It makes me weep to think of what our patriarchal culture is doing to little boys who are being hurt so terribly.

Homosexuality and child rape are not the same thing, child rape has to do with sexual compulsion and manifests in largely the same way as does an addiction to drugs, with interestingly, about the same rehabilitation rate. If a little boy were to feel a sexual response to an abuser's attack, that is normal bodily function. It definitely does not mean that he is homosexual or that the abuser is homosexual when it comes to adult partners.

I hope all adult survivors on this board will go to professional counseling. There are many excellent male or female Adventist psychotherapists. One of the best things survivors can do is learn, as you noted Nic.

I remain anonymous for personal reasons. I hope you understand.

[Anonymous]

To Everyone,

I do apologize for changing the subject to what I did. There were reasons and I found it pertinent regarding the underlying hierarchical issues in bringing up abortion (which is in many ways a gender and sexual issue) but certainly Bush's stance on torture deserves its own thread. I'm removing myself from this thread and watching with interest.

[Alexander]

Thanks for the links, Nic.

Am I right in reading that you received your PhD from an online school called Andrew Jackson U?

I can't find any PhD programs offered in Religion and the faculty mostly appear to not have PhDs themselves. Am I missing something?

And am I right it reading your endnotes correctly that you researched and wrote this in about a year? In fact, you accessed almost all the Ministry articles on the same day?

I also noticed that your research is almost wholly without primary documentation. In fact, your entire chapter three comes from one book on Desmond Doss.

In fact, the almost the entire document seems to be a compilation of previously published articles and letters by others and some of your previously unpublished works.

One thing that really doesn't do the issue justice is your reliance on hearsay and secondary observations. I'd be interested to see the credentials of your diss. committee.

While plenty of your observations certainly are true -- laity don't have an equal say in the church -- it doesn't follow that by guessing the position of Adventists by extracting quotes from their writing and totaling those up, one gets an accurate sense of the Adventist stance on abortion.

For instance, this guess:

"Shawn Boonstra seemed to be in agreement with the lawyer he interviewed that human life starts at 'the time of conception. . .' These statements seem to support the idea that Shawn Boonstra believes in the pro-life agenda."

That's a lot of subjunctives.

In chapter XI, I found your story of frustration compelling. But it appears that most of the chapter is a reprint of articles you've previously written, including a letter to a politician. Sometimes it's not the viewpoints but the scholarship that keeps some stances from seeing the light of day.

Dividing writers into the pro-life or pro-choice camp is extremely subjective, especially when the evidence is just a paragraph from Ministry.

You may wonder why all those articles have not been published. You might consider that your scholarship is getting in the way of the moral question.

Now let's get back to the topic of this post: torture.

Given the time o' trouble narrative in Adventism, I'd be surprised to find an Adventist who takes our theology seriously willing to justify torture through a "rooting our subversives" or defending a "Christian nation" argument.

[Carrol Grady]

Nic said: Nevertheless, for the sake of fairnes, it must be contrasted with the murders, maiming, and beheading of innocent individuals by the terrorists.

Does the result really justify the method? While there can be no justification for 9/11, should we not also take into consideration America's past actions of self-interest that may have
provoked it?

[Nic Samojluk]

Johnny:

In answer to your question I will quote what I stated earlier to David about my position regarding the death penalty:

"I do not support the death penalty for another reason: The penalty is final, and there is no recourse if later on a DNA shows that the executed man was in fact innocent.

Nevertheless, in the event we could be 100 percent sure that the murderer did commit the crime, then if society were to execute him, there would still be a night and day contrast between his exedution and the execution of a totally innocent victim."

[Nic Samojluk]

Tom:

I agree! I will emphasize one great statement you made:

"It is the one with the power to heal who must make the choice." This represents a mandate and a limitation!

The clue here is "power to heal." God has given physicians the power, the talent, and the authority to heal. Likewise, for two thousand years society held physicians responsible for said power to heal and they were accountable to the Hippocratic Oath which prevented them from encroaching onto the "power to kill."

The "power to kill" granted to physicians by nine unelected Justices of the Supreme Court was a new phenomenon and society has been experimenting with this new power. A power which eventually will go, I believe, the way of the "power to enslave," which was done away following the Civil War when blacks began to be treated as members of the human race.

One day, and I hope it would be tomorrow, the unborn will again be considered members of the human family, and will again be protected from ujust execution.

This day is fast approaching, and there are signs that it may soon become a reality: A good example is the case of Scott Peterson, who was convicted of two murders, the murder of his wife, Lacy, and of his unborn son.

The power to execute a human being should be retained by the government and never granted to individual women, which has created an artificial double standard: If the baby is wanted, it is a human being, and anybody who kills the unborn is guilty of murder; but if the baby is not wanted, then killing the same baby is merely akin to rhe removal of an appendix. This is insane, in my book, and a perversion of justice.

[Nic Samojluk]

Dear Anonimous:

You said it quite well: "Little boys don't ask to be raped." I will only add that they may enjoy the taste of candy, but not the sexual act." I can't imagine they would or could!

[Nic Samojluk]

Alexander:

Thanks for your comments and your questions. They are quite lenghty. I will try to answer all of them, one by one. I may even do it in more than one step, since otherwise my response may turn out to be extremely long.

1. Yes, my doctoral dissertation was done by distant learning, and the institution was Andrew Jackson University. It was the only way I could have done this, since I needed to take care of my family and of my business.

It took me ten years of part time effort. I would get up at five A.M., study till 8:00 A.M., then engage in my daily real estate business activities, and then resume my Ph.D. study in the evening and work till nine or ten P.M.

2. You can't find a Ph.D. program for the simple reason that it was phased out. Nevertheless, you can verify with the university that such program was in existence!

When I signed up for the program, I was advised that the Ph.D. program was under review, and that A.J.U. could not guarantee that the program would be eventually accredited.

When I discussed this with Dr. Gerald Winslow, I explained to him that I could care less whether A.J.U. would succeed in their accreditation efforts. What I wanted was an opportunity to learn.

3. The faculty I had the privilege to deal with all had their Ph.D. I have no idea what the current situation is now. When the doctoral program in religion was discontinued, the people I knew were let off. If this is important for the question we are dealing with, I can find out. Please let me know!

4. You are reading the endnotes correctly. [Actually they were footnotes in the original.] But you are interpreting that information incorrectly.

I started work on the dissertation several years prior to graduation; but, before submitting my dissertation material for review, I double checked my sources to make sure those links were still live.

I performed that taks about the same date. This is why it gave you the impression that I had done the research in one day! Wow! I wish I could have performed such feat!

You can ask my wife, and she will testify that I struggled with my dissertation for ages. Those Internet links bear the same or similar date for said reason.

I did not want to submit material which my dissertation committee could not double check and verify because the sources had evaporated, which is quite common in cyberspace

[I will continue answereing your many questions and comments in my next posting. I need to tale a break and I don't want what I have already typed to be lost in cyberspace!]

[Nic Samojluk]

Alexander:

I will try to answer a few additional questions you posted for me:

5. Yes the material I relied on was what you call "secondary." I do not label said information as secondary or "hearsay." It includes articles written by recognized authors and also the opinions of many individuals who had written to the publishers expressing their personal opinions about abortion.

There is a reason why I chose to rely on this type of materrial. My objective, which I stated in my dissertation proposal, was limited to finding out whether the Adventist claim was a valid one or not. The Adventist Church had claimed to be pro-life. This was a shocker to me, and I wanted to find out whether our official Guidelines of Abortion accurately represented what the majority of those who had written about the morality of abortion between 1970 and 2006 were thinking about the issue.

If you read the conclusions I reached, you will discover that my instinct had led me right. The official Guidelines of Abortion did not represent the thinking of the majority of those who had stated their opinions in black and white in the SDA literature I examined.

This is not to say that my conclusions are set in cement. Other investigators may reach conclusions that negate the results of my research. I realy hope that others will take the time to do this. If I am wrong, I am the first one interested in finding this out!

[For some reason, my connection with your previous posting is not accessible, for which reason I will take another break!]

[Nic Samojluk]

Alexander:

I will resume the task of trying to answer some of the remaining questions you posted for me.

6. I believe that the best way of verifying the credentials of my dissertation committee is by contacting A.J.U. They should have all this documentation in their files.

7. You rightly state that "laity don't have an equal say in the church." This was confirmed by my investigation.

If you check the conclusions I reached at the end of my research, you will discover that I discovered that two thirds of the SDA authors of the articles published in the publications and books I relied on belonged to the pro-choice position of abortion, while the opposite is true about those who had their opinions published in the same.

I intrepret this to mean that the intelligentsia of of the SDA is pro-choice, while the rest of Adventists seem to be pro-life. In addition, it should be noted that the American official position on abortion is not shared by Adventists in other Divisions of the world.

In fact, as I have already stated, I received a confirmation of this from Dr. Ronald Noltze who assured me that the hospitals under his supervision in South America, Europe, and Africa did not provide abortion services while he was in charge of those institutions.

This means that the SDA pro-choice/pro-abortion position on abortion is an American phenomenon. The same physician assured me that there exist documents veryfying this in other Divisions. I would be glad to share this with you when it becomes available to me.

8. I agree with you that trying to estimate the thinking of the SDA community by relying of isolated statements is not a sure way of validating a research hypothesis.

Dr. Geral Winslow conducted a survey of Adventist hospitals a few years ago, and he was disappointed with the results, because in a survey, only a fraction of those included in the study take the time to respond.

This led me to believe, that analyzing everything that had been stated in the leading Adventist literature during the three decades since abortion was legalized was probably a more reliable way of estimating the heart and soul of Adventism as it relates to the killing of the unborn.

9. I agree with you that dividing the writers and labelling them as pro-choice and pro-life is rather subjective. The problem is that if I had attempted to rely on a survey, the results would have been even more problematic, I believe.

10. You wondered why my personal articles were never published. I am glad you brought this up. I will answer this in my next posting!

[Nic Samojluk]

Alexander:

I am ready to try to wrap this up.

10. You wanted to know why the articles I included in chapter XI of my dissertation were never published by Adventist publishers. The reason is very simple. Back in the nineties, the editor of the Loma Linda University Church Newsletter included a critical editorial ridiculing the activities of pro-lifers. I aksed for equal time. This was denied on the excuse that abortion was a controversial issue.

I complained to the Pastor, and argued that the Sabbath has been a controversial issue since the beginning of the Adventist movement, and the same was true about smoking. Nevertheless, this did not prevent us from using a ton of ink on those controversial subjects.

I got nowhere. Later on, both David Larson and Erwin Taylor asked me to write about my favorite subject. I did and submitted it for publication. I am still waiting for them to publish it.

Then it occurred to me to submit to the Adventist Review an article dealing with a non-controversial topic. It was approved, and I received a $50 dollar check for the submission. I am still waiting for them to publish it. I realized that at that rate, I would be six feet under if I continued to wait for Adventists to published anything I were to submit.

One day I leafled through Spectrum and Adventist today, and I noticed that after each author, there was a Ph.D. title printed. I realized then and there that I would probably never be published by Adventists on a controversial subject like abortion.

I decided to enroll in a Ph.D. program for the sole purpose of eventually getting published. I also designed my own web page: http://www.sdaforum.com, which allowd me to publish my own articles in the meantime.

Recently, when Erwin Taylor discovered that I was on the verge of finishing my doctoral dissertation, he came to my office and asked me to submit another article dealing with abortion. This time my submission was published.

11. Regarding your final comments about waterboarding torture. I agree with what you stated.

It's been a pleasure answereing your questions. If there is more, please let me know!