To me, John McCain continues to be a hero, a flawed human hero, but nevertheless a man of principle and courage. He is the only Republican for whom I would vote, while there are more than one Democratic candidates to whom I could gladly give support.

As a Christian, my first concern must be, I believe, that we change the structure of this society in a way where we care for our sisters and brothers in greatest need--the poor, rather than the rich (I am think of what Jesus ahd to say about the judgment and dividing people between "sheep" and "goats".) It is also important, based on the same factors, that we welcome the strangers, and try to bring peace to the world, and spend tax monies on te needs of people rather than weapons of mass destruction (yes, we have far more of those than anyone else). I see several Democrat candidates who could help in these matters, but the one whom I trust the most right now to focus on such issues is John Edwards. I therefore "vote" for him--and wish I were a registered voter in Iowa tonight.

I cannot in good faith vote for a man that turns his back on the flag of our good old USA nd refused to honor our countries national anthem.
I also beleive that Barak Obama is still down deep a mamber or Islamic faith.

I liked the letter to the Editor of the Adventist Review December 13, 2007 by Dennis Murphy, Morgantown, W. Va.
"I think Katrina was the result of local irresponsibility; global warming is mostly hysteria, and the war in Iraq is necessary. I'm not alone in that, but I know that others in our church disagree. Whose opinion should the church's voice reflect. If it makes you feel better, you can hit the streets and march with signs saying you're opposed to human suffering--as if others aren't.
see the Review for the complete quote.
I hope the Church or Spectrum doesn't become a political rallying place.

I think that Bush's doctrine of a "Preemtptive Strike" is a very dangerous policy. It has resulted so far in the death of over 3,000 American soldiers, and the death of hundreds of thousands or Iraqis. The money spent on this war could have alleviated the suffering of millions of people in the undeveloped countries of the world.

It is true that Saddam, the "Butcher of Baghdad," killed thousands of his own people, and that his sons were guilty of untold crimes against humanity. Nevertheless, we as a nation have also killed our own people--not by the thousands, but by the millions. I am talking about the fifty million of innocent babies we have slaughtered for their crime of waiting to be born.

When Abraham Lincoln decided that it was time to put an end to the unjust slavery institution, Seventh-day Adventists did approve of such a move, and many of them provided sanctuary for the blacks running away from their masters. Our early SDA pioneers had a correct sense of justice. They also--by the way--condemned in the stongest terms the practice of abortion.

If you have any doubt, I suggest you take the time to read my doctoral dissertation entitled: "From Pro-life to Pro-choice: The Dramatic Change of Seventh-day Attitudes Towards Abortion." The Internet link is: http://www.sdaforum.com/page13 .

By contrast, when back in the 1970 the State of Hawaii legalized the practice of abortion, the SDA leader of the North-American Division defended the practice of abortion by arguing that there were too many human beings in the world and much hunger.

This is how several of our SDA hospitals embraced the practice of offering--not only the so called "therapeutic abortions"-- but elective abortions as well. This action by the SDA church represented a 180 degree turn around on this issue. And don't forget that abortion is no therapy for the unborn baby. Would those defending such therapy accept the same therapy for themselves?

The SDA church in North America is not growing, and we are closing SDA schools. No wonder, at the rate we are aborting the future generation of Adventists, we can no longer afford to keep half empty schools. In many countries where abortion is still illegal, our church is growing and we are building schools and churches like crazy.

I believe that it is time for us to vote for a candidate interested in putting an end to the murderous practice of abortion. We have several options: Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and others. It is time to free those destined to the slaughterhouse. This is what our SDA pioneers would do if they were alive today.

Nic, I can see that you feel very strongly about the matter of abortion and that you have actually done something about it by researching the development of the SDA stace on the subject. Regretfully I was unable to access the site on which your paper is displayed.
While I do take your point about the tradegedy of abortions, one has to be careful of supporting a candidate simply because he is against abortion. George Bush is strongly against abortion, but look at what he has unleased in Iraq, and the consequences that are flowing from it. His policy on the use of corn as feedstock for ethanal production is also one of the chief causes in the spiral of grain prices around the world, that will result no doubt in the death by starvation of millions of people around the world.
Just be careful what or who you vote for.

There is only one candidate that is pro-life when it comes to abortion, and has also opposed the idea of preemptive war and the Bush policy in Iraq. He has always remained consistent with his policies (something that none of the others can claim.) He also is the only true constitutionalist and is a huge supporter of personal freedom, which should be significant to SDA's. The only person I could possibly vote for is Dr. Ron Paul. If you haven't heard of him check him out on the web and you will see that he is the only real hope for our country.

Yes, after listening to Saturday night's debate in NH he made a good showing; in spite of the bitter rankling between most of the other Republicans. However, he is not going to be a candidate. It is preposterous that two small, unrepresentative states hold sway over who shall be the nominees. This is what needs to be changed before the next election in 2012.

the correct url for Nic's dissertation is: http://sdaforum.com/page13.html

Dare one have the audacity to ask what institution granted Nick his PhD?

There are an awful lot of people who have taken this poll that are in favor of Barack Obama, despite the fact that he's voiced some alarming "criticism" over the National ID card:

"I do not support the Real ID program because it is an unfunded mandate, and not enough work has been done with the states to help them implement the program."
Barack Obama

So the problem is funding? Not our civil liberties? Does a national ID card not sound frighteningly familiar to anyone who's read certain writings of Ellen White?

I hope that some of you go to this site (http://www.realnightmare.org/) and evaluate what's really at stake here.

Considering that EGW wrote what to you is "frightening familiar" more than 100 years ago, since then we've had driver's license; Social Security Cards, and credit cards with pictures and other identification easily seen. While this may seem more intrusive, as a member of the ACLU, I have not yet been convinced that is a terrible intrusion. However, I'm willing to be convinced that it would be a costly and time-consuming requirement for many. How close to reaching a state's consensus is it at present?
Can you give us your personal reaction and reason?

Elaine,
I am with you!! Might add US Passport to the list.

In HK we had "National ID" (Hong Kong identity card)under the British. Basically it seems that those against it in the US don't want to quickly identify who is a US citizen or who legitimately has the right to vote.

A National ID is innocuous in my view relative to today's technology and circumstances.

Elaine: I received my Doctoral degre from "Andrew Jackson University," the only university I could locate at the time that was offering a Ph.D. program in religion by distant learning. This was the only way I was able to do this, since I could not afford to close my real estate business. The university phased out the program the year I graduated. Had I waited, I would have missed the boat.

It took me ten years to complete all the coursework and to write the dissertation on a part time basis. I would get up at 5:00 AM, study till 8:00 and go to work. Then in the evening I would work till 9:00 or 10:00. It wasn't easy, but I am glad I did this. I wish I could name Harvard as my alma mater, but that was the best I could do.

It cost me a fortune in real estate business lossess, and I do not expect to land a teaching job anywhere. I sacrificed time and business opportunities for the sake of the unborn. My reward will be to meet sometime a mother who might say: "Here is my son/daughter who would have been aborted, had I not read what you discovered about abortion."

Pat--we still have a HKID card, just not British now. After 7 years residency, you get a permanent ID. Makes life much easier--the lines at immigration when returning to HK, for instance. And how they're used is not that much different than using a driver's license or SSN in the US (I always wondered how it could be legal to put an SSN on a driver's license as several states did--I think they have been changed, now).

M

Hi M again, hope you and family are fine...How are things in "electric" Hong Kong.

The point of bringing up the HKID (happened to leave when I was finally eligible to be a citizen)...Of course I would be a dual one... was someone was relating ID's to the "final persecution" paradigm. How about just blocking your bank account or cancelling all credit...that ID point is moot it seems in todays reality. I may scream if they want a computer chip in me! :~)

Politicians are "often" such a farce here. If they wanted to control legal "immigration" require a sponsor for employment just like in HK and issue an official ID. Punish illegal employers and export the worker like in HK at least when I was there.

You see here in the US system, you have political interest on both sides of the issue. Big business (and others) want cheap labor with local governments held responsible for all their benefits(health and education etc.) On the other side "Liberal" politicians seek their votes as "providers of the social benefits" and do not want National ID's that would state who is really qualified to vote as a US citizen.

That's the issue here...hope all is well for you in HK! I miss it at times and my wife "greatly" misses the food!