Interesting to note that both Paul and Obama are (arguably) their respective parties' most anti-establishment candidates. Both exude a sense of idealism, offer change, oppose the "system", and even seem a little bit subversive. I suspect that is part of the reason that these two candidates have such broad appeal among younger voters and such strong internet campaigns.

Older folks in general seem to value stability and experience. Older folks tend to be vary of change. It's not very surprising that Hillary Clinton and John McCain tend to have solid support among older voters, and in Hillary's case, older women voters.

On the other hand, Ron Paul and Barack Obama have tapped into the sentiments of the younger set who tend to be idealistic, sometimes subversive, and open to change.

------

If I had GOP leanings, I think I would vote for Ron Paul because of his opposition to the war and to government surveillance programs. His opposition to government infringement of constitutional rights and his opposition to ridiculous military expenditure are very appealing.

However, I vote Democrat. The ideals of the Democrat party are consistent with the most pressing concerns of Scripture: to deal hospitably with foreigners, to provide justice and equity for the poor, and to attend to the needs of the “least of these”.

I reject a “free market” model that sees economic competition and selfishness as the tools best suited to meeting the needs of America’s people. A free market offers nothing to America’s low-income families in terms of health care or education. A free market has no concern for environmental degradation.

-----

As for the candidate that I support – I’ve got a (man)crush on Obama.

As a relative newcomer on the Washington political landscape, he brings crucial insight to the scene. He points out the brokenness and corruptness of Washington’s politics. He opposes war as a solution to war. He wants the troops back home. He wants to shut down Gitmo.

Obama has clear stance on health care for all Americans and affordable, effective education. He has clear objectives for working toward energy independence and combating climate change.

I appreciate John Edward's stance on the abuses of Washington lobbyists and his vow to reign in the influence of special interest groups.

However I see Barack Obama as the candidate with the best comprehensive plan for implementing the kinds of positive changes that America needs in the post-Bush era. My donations and vote go to Barack Obama.

Oops! Older voters tend to be wary of change, not vary of change!

I don't know about that heading, Alex: "Two pastors face off." We weren't asked to speak to each other or respond to each other, we were asked to simply say why we were supporting the candidate we were, and to limit ourselves to 400 words.

I could say a lot more, of course. I could say, pace Jared, that the reason why I could never vote for a Democrat is because I believe the party fails in a major way the very test he proposes, to "attend to the needs of the 'least of these'"--as long as it is actively pro-abortion, it is saying "the least of these" in fact do not matter.

And a "free market" does indeed deal with education, health care, the environment--by getting these things outside of government regulation and allowing individuals and groups the freedom to speak and to act unfettered. Government can only make a mess of things--it is part of the problem, not the solution.

I just found it interesting that two pastors responded, and so thoughtfully. In the titling, I just wanted to highlight that fact.

I also thought it interesting, as Jared notes, both pastors choose anti-establishment candidates. I wonder if anyone has a sense of who other Adventist pastors would select.

It's my sense that Spectrum readers tend to be anti-establishment, even more than right or left on the political or theological spectrum.

As far as abortion and government -- those are classic dividing lines since 1964 and 1980 respectively, but they seem not to be as important among voters under 40. Any thoughts?

Ryan:

If Obama’s your man, you might find this recent essay (his Dec 30 column) by George Will interesting…

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will123007.php3

For me, this dynamic adds to the depth of potential and intrigue that could really explode into a grassroots, truly “of” the people (as opposed to all the varied special interests) movement… Now, if only we could wrest this man from his “handlers”. While I’d bet I differ vastly from most here in my politics and preferences and priorities, I’d also bet the lot of us would find a spontaneous, “unhandled”, from the heart, not prone to the “finger in the air” testing for current political “flavor of the day” ethics, candidate MOST refreshing. (I think those qualities are already working for Paul…)

If Will is right about Obama, and if he is able to capture this vision of “transcendence of confining categories”, and if he is able to avoid the pandering that everyone seems to assume is supposed to happen, (which is why they all seem so willing to do it) this guys “message” could be so far reaching and energizing and liberating that… OMG -- a vote for a Democrat might finally make sense to me…

(If he can get past his parties elections -- unfortunately, doubtful -- and on to the general election… wow -- the mind boggles at the kind of consensus and coalitions he could build…)

(Maybe not unlike Tiger Woods has taken his ethnicity, embraced it, and redefined it into something that transcends and has the effect of ennobling and affirming and uplifting us all?? )

Hey: this is the time to dream. Then, after election, the work begins...

I'm far from being "under 40" but I think a lot of Adventists have a more nuanced view of abortion, which tends to eliminate them from the "pro-life" camp which seems to see any abortion whatsoever as sinful (in contrast to their stand on the death penalty!). I, as most Adventists I've talked to, think a woman should have a *choice* in the case of incest. rape, and the mother's health, including future reproductive health.

If women should have the right to take the life of their own flesh and blood, then why not grant also men the right to rape them. A woman who has been raped can eventually get healed of her traumatic experience and lead an almost normal life afterwards. Not so with the unborn baby after it has been either poisoned or torn apart limb from limb.

Taking the life of the unborn is an erreversible act which deprives an innocent child of life on a permanent basis. Likewise, men perhaps should also have the right to steal somebody else's property. Depriving a human being of his possessions can never be compared with the deprivation of the right to life of an innocent baby.

The victims of rape and incest can always give their baby for adoption, and thus avoid a life of regret of having authorized the execution of innocent life and of having been an accomplice of the shedding of innocent blood, which the Good Book forbids.

For two thousand years the Hippocratic Oath forbade physicians from performing abortions, then came the sexual revolution of the sixties, and bingo: Sudenly what was a crime against humanity became therapy for pregnant women who were not prepared to raise a child. On what basis can the killing of innocent babies be called a "therapeutic pregnancy interruption?" Would those advocating such therapy accept said therapy treatment for themselves?

I have had the privilege of carefully studying this issue and I chose said topic for my doctoral dissertation. I discovered things that are hard to believe, such as the reason given by the president of the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists in defense of abortion: Overpopulation and hunger in the world.

You may not be aware of this, but a few years ago a survey revealed that several SDA hospitals were offering--not only therapeutic--but also elective abortions where there was nothing wrong with the pregnancy. This from the leader of a church which is proud to proclaim to the world as being God's chosen "Remnant church." Remnant while justifying the execution of the innocents, which is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments?

No wonder the SDA church in North America is not growing. We are killing the future generation of Adventists. Last Sabbath, the SS teacher lamented the closing of SDA schools in our country. Well, in other parts of the world they are building SDA schools like crazy because the church is growing. And in those countries, abortion is still illegal!

If you are interested in reading my doctoral dissertation entitled: "From Pro-life to Pro Choice: The Dramatic Change in Seventh-day's Attitudes Towards Abortion," then visit the following Internet page: http://www.sdaforum.com/page13.html .

Carol you said the uspeakable word "rape" that brings some folks out of the woodwork with a one-track focus that is causing most of the problems in our world today.

Carrol,

I rarely comment on this subject...but in the case of rape, incest, or absolute threat to a mothers life my personal belief is that abortion should be an option. I do not believe that the government should fund any abortions however.

I do believe that it is a sin to use abortion as a "birth control" measure but I do understand the complexities with teenagers.

Those involved will be judged by God...not me.

Out on a "tightrope",

pat

After re-reading Carrol Grady's comments, I decided to add the following comment: There is a fundamental difference between the killing of a convicted murderer [death penalty] and the killing of an innocent human being![abortion].

Justice demands that we punish the guilty--not the innocent. Modern society imposes the death penalty on the innocent [the unborn] and lets the guilty [rapist] live.

When the physical life of the pregnant woman is at serious risk, then common sense dictates that it is wiser to save one life instead of loosing two. In such a scenario, saving the life of the mother is still Pro-life.

It is true that God will eventually judge everyone, nevertheless, society is bound to punish the evildoers in the meantime. The abortionists should be punished for his crime of profitting from the shedding of innocent blood.

If there is ever a perversion of God's view of proper sexuality it could not be any more violated than in the case of rape or incest. God does not expect a woman or child to be an incubator after being violated by rape or incest...I can not accept that.

Most pro-lifers understand that a response was needed after 9/11. There is "collateral damage" sometimes when earthly efforts at justice are attempted. Both the "innocent" in war and the "innocent" in the womb. Neither is the ideal and because God "allowed" both does not mean we don't respond to either.

He will judge the thoughts and intents and circumstances.

I find all the idealistic comments interesting but just that idealistic and not realistic. Unfortunately, America is in decline on many fronts; morality, spirituality (take God, prayer and faith out of the fabric of personal and public life and the common denominator reduces one to the level of self-duped nothings), and add greed and selfishness to the equation and you find crime and assault on society escalates into anarchy.

Sure, if we all mirrored Jesus there would be true equality and putting others ahead of ourselves. This attitude and action would than bring the utopia all are desiring but most unwilling to follow, the rich young ruler is an example of those in this class.

Finally, I wonder what your thoughts are regarding E. G. White writings that Christians, especially Adventists should avoid participating in politics. See "Our Attitude In Regard To Politics" on page 391-3 in Gospel Workers; TE 253-6; 2SM 336-7; and FE 475,478.

Doesn't she also say that we should have representatives in the halls of Congress and in the highest bodies of the land? How does that square with no involvement in politics? How does one get in any office, even in SDA institutions sans politics? It is involved in every sphere of our lives. Are you saying we should not vote?

The notion that God, prayer, and faith should be part of our public life is contradictory to the 2nd amendment. Private prayer is what Jesus recommended (Go into your closet...).

I agree with Bill that this wasn't billed (no pun intended) as a Face Off. I didn't write my comments as a rebuttal or debate with Bill. Just so I'm also clear about that.

I think Bill, in his comment, gets to the heart of the division over politics in America. It's fundamentally a question of whether the free-market can serve the common good. Democrats are most distrustful of corporations and business, because history has shown that unrestrained free markets have exacerbated the divsions between rich and poor. Republicans are more distrustful of governments, because it limits their ability to run businesses in unregulated ways. And, Republicans (a la Reagan) truly do believe that by the richest Americans getting richer, that that wealth and prosperity "trickles down" to benefit all of society. I disagree with that sentiment.

I do agree with Bob that Obama could truly be a uniter. We'll see if he can make it. But it he acts and talks like a Democrat just remember, he is a Democrat, though not in the establishment way that Clinton is. I think, in terms of "handlers" Obama has resisted being handled more than anyone I've seen in recent history. He has made decisions about his campaign that I'm sure make his campaign staff very nervous. But last night we saw that the "old rules" are necessarily written in stone. The American people are smarter and more clued in that most pundits give credit.

Anyway, here's to a new America - all fired up and ready to go!

When you are on your way to Jericho and you come across a man who has been attacked by theives, what is the right thing to do? Help him. The next day when you are on your way to Jericho and come across another man who has been attacked by thieves, what is the right thing to do? Help him. And the day after that, when the same thing happens? Help him. But at some point the right thing to do becomes doing something about the theives. As followers of Christ, we are called not just to help the poor and the oppressed, but to work to allieviate the systems that cause poverty and oppresion. These systems are often political, and therefore changing them involves political solutions.

It is true that poolitical discussion can be divisive, and as Christians we have enough trouble with that already. But while it may sound holy to refrain from being involved in politics, to truly follow Christ means using our power (including our voices and our votes) to make the world a better place. Remaining uninformed and uninvolved are not acts of faithfulness, but of irresponsibility. As Americans, we are members of the most powerful nation in the world, and we bear responsibility for how it makes its decisions. The great thing about a democracy is that we are our own leaders. Imagine if good people didn't vote - who would get elected? To take it a step further, imagine good people didn't run for office - who would we have to choose from? (I realize many people believe this to be the case.)

However, I also believe that many Christians take this to mean endorsing a political party or a particular candidate. This ought not to be our primary goal. We ought to be speaking out about issues, not parties. Obviously, neither party has a monopoly on the truth, and as Barack points out, the only path toward getting anything done is forming a working majority - dialoguing and working with people who might not see things exactly the way we do. (Incidentally, this is an idea that would revolutionize the way we as Adventists see our role in spreading the Kingdom of God.)

I think this means recognizing that the people who disagree with you might have some valid reasons for doing so. Unfortunately, political candidates and parties tend to demonize their opponents and minimize their positions. This tendency is what is at heart of separation of America and the divisiveness in political debate. (One of things I like most about Obama is his willingness to concede the strengths of opposing positions and wisely consider both sides of an issue, forming policy accordingly.) If we take the time to listen before we begin bludgeoning someone with our point of view, not only will we gain a deeper understanding of the issue, we might even help the other person gain a deeper understanding as well. (Have you ever really changed another person's view of an issue by telling them they are wrong?)

In the case of abortion, I think this might mean recognizing that the issue might not be as black and white as: abortion = murder; or conversely prohibiting abortion = government tyranny. Obviously, any debate on the subject is contingent upon your belief as to when a group of cells becomes a child. Many people believe it is at conception, and assume everyone else ought to arrive at the same conclusion. (And are murders if they don't.) It is possible that they are not murders but simply have a different belief about when that group of cells becomes a child. The body naturally aborts a high percentage of embryos, and if those cells are children, ought we not to work to prevent that? On the other hand, medical studies believe many of those spontaneous abortions are due to deffects in the fetus. If this is the case, it could then be argued that abortions of defective fetuses were accomplishing something the body intended but failed to do. The policy side of things is just as complicated as the medical. While abortion may be illegal in many countries, the abortion rates in those countries is often higher than it is here in the US. (And while our schools in those countries may be doing well, hopefully we can recognize the difference between correlation and causation.) To make matters worse, in countries where abortion is illegal, abortions are usually performed in unsanitary conditions be people who are not medical professionals. As Christians, we have an undeniable charge to protect the weak. But couldn't that include the mothers as well? (In Nigeria, the un-wed pregnant teenage girl probably had little choice in the matter.) The truth is, passing legislation might make us feel better, but it does little to save babies. I am opposed to abortion, but I am also opposed to making it illegal. What I am for, is what is happening across America now: clinics are requiring extensive counseling beforehand, arranging meetings with mothers who have had abortions and regret it, helping girls explore other options like adoption, showing pictures of what the fetus looks like and what it is doing developmentally, providing resources for keeping and raising the child. If we as Christians are honestly serious about protecting the unborn, we would do so much more effectively by creating communities (our churches) where instead of being ostracized, un-wed mothers could come for help and caring support in raising a child in a God-centered way.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind - but I would like to deepen the debate and encourage us to listen and consider issues rather than railing at people for differing beliefs.

Sorry for the manifesto - Dan

Nic, there are two reasons you don't mention why a woman might choose to abort a baby born of incest or rape. You might want to read _Ghosts in the Nursery_ to understand that children born of violence are very likely to grow up to be violent themselves. And a child born of incest stands a great chance to inherit familial mental and physical weaknesses. Not to mention the memories that the mother will always associate with the child. That's not to say that all such women will choose abortion, but I believe they should have the choice. But no, I don't agree with our hospitals that offer elective abortions. I think we can have high ideals and still be realistic about real-life situations.

Is the government better able to make such moral decisions about abortion than those most intimately involved? In times past, the authorities decided very personal decisions, what type of religion and how to practice it, affecting no one but those concerned. When we become willing to allow the government to make religious decisions (yes, when life or a "soul" begins, IS a theological, not a scientific one) we have abandoned to them our freedom of choice.

Last night Iowa and Obama showed again why I remain hopeful about the direction of the country in which I live. For 16 months I've been wishing for this, and last night it went beyond my posted signs and articles and bumper stickers to the domain of reality.

Living in the Midwest does have some advantages, even when the temperature hits six degrees. Both my sons, their wives, and my wife and I have worked on the Obama campaign, attended events, shaken Barack's hand, made telephone calls, and yesterday all of our four children were present at the Des Moines victory speech. "The night was electric," our Adventist pastor son recounted. "People were standing afterward, dazed, saying, 'I can't believe we did it.'"

Though I don't agree with every position from any candidate (no, I'm not blinded to fallibility), I do see Obama uniting and inspiring this country and the world in redemptive ways, including the nation of Islam.

While Jesus remains our only true hope, here's to moving beyond expediency and exploitation toward a future of healing, dialogue, and real progress. Here's to His will being done on earth as it is in heaven.

Here, here Chris. And here's that pretty impressive speech from last night.

I'd have to say Ron Paul and Obama are the candidates that are most impressive to me. I just worry about the effect of pushing their respective ideologies too far. The best explication of this libertarian-liberal tension I've seen so fare is the BBC series "The Trap" by Adam Curtis. It's well worth watching.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8372545413887273321

"I just worry about the effect of pushing their respective ideologies too far."

Well, Dave, given that Congress will remain in the hands of The Usual Suspects, and the Supreme Court will always be there to have its say, I think this is a case where the system of checks and balances plays a useful corrective.

I'd go for a president who respects that system and the other co-equal branches, as opposed to a man who would be king. :-)

First I want to thank Pat, Daniel, Carrol, Elaine, and David for their comments about the issue of abortion. Very soon we will be casting our votes for the next president of our great nation, and the issue of abortion should be relevant to Christians, and more so to Seventh-day Adventists, because our early pioneers were very clear regarding their stand on this topic.

For brevity’s sake, I will limit myself to what James
White, the founder of our publishing work and one of the earliest presidents of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, stated about this issue. He condemned the practice of abortion with the strongest terms and did not hesitate to describe it as “murder.” When I was asked by “Adventist Today” to write about this topic, I was warned that any offensive word would be edited out, which meant that the founder of our publishing work would have to soften his statement today to get published in our SDA magazines.

Where did the SDA pioneers get this idea that abortion was equivalent to murder? The answer is quite simple: For two thousand years the Christian church held in high esteem the Hippocratic Oath, which required that doctors abstain of doing any harm to their patients including the unborn. This is why, even today, the Catholic hospitals abstain from the offering abortion services. In fact, both the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist organization have a high regard for the sanctity of human life.

In 1970, the SDA church took a 180 degree turn towards the practice of abortion. The reason? When the state of Hawaii legalized abortion, the non Adventist physicians at our SDA hospital there threatened to take their abortion patients elsewhere if the administration did not allow them to provide elective abortions, and the then president of the NAD publicly declared that the SDA church was leaning towards abortion. The reason? There was too much hunger and overpopulation in the world.

If only the Catholic and the Southern Baptists communities decided to remain faithful to the Hippocratic Oath, while the rest of the religious organizations, including the Adventists, opted to ignore the Biblical injunction against the shedding of innocent blood, then I ask: Who is the “Remnant”? Can the Adventist church still claim to be God’s Remnant church on earth? Can any violation of God’s commands be worse than executing innocent unborn children?

I was trained to believe that the Sabbath was the most sacred element of the Decalogue. Did Jesus believe this? Perhaps he did, but he never said that! Nevertheless, he did state that in the final judgment our destiny would be determined on the basis of our treatment of the “least of these.” Do the unborn qualify as the least of these?

Dan raised the question of when does in fact human life begin. For two millennia there was a tacit agreement that human life started at conception, and all biology books stated that human life started with fertilization. Both Catholic and Southern Baptist teaching still hold to this traditional definition of human life, while the rest of society, including Adventists, began to question this in order to justify abortion.

Dan also pointed to the fact that nature aborts defective fetuses. I ask: Are we free to imitate nature? Nature kills through tornados, tsunamis, and earthquakes. Are we morally free to imitate nature?

What about the claim that abortions increase when they are illegal? Just read the Planned Parenthood statistics. When abortion was legalized in the U.S., in a few years, the number of abortions mushroomed to a million and a half per year.

Carrol stated that the children of rape tend to be violent. Can she cite credible statistics to support this? Some of them might turn violent, but many children born not of rape do so as well. Wouldn’t it wiser and fairer to allow them to be born, and then execute only those who turn violent, regardless of whether they are the result of rape or not?

Elaine suggested that the government role should not include the making of theological decisions regarding the beginning of human life. My answer is: The beginning of human life is a physiological question. If human life begins at conception, then the government’s duty is to protect such life. Negating this creates a conundrum where if the pregnant woman wants the unborn child, the unborn is a human being, and if not then it is merely a “product of conception.” Do not forget that Scott Peterson was declared guilty of a double murder: that of Lacy and her unborn baby.

David stated that he was impressed both with Obama and Ron Paul as the best qualified to be presidents. As far as abortion is concerned there is an important difference between these two candidates: Obama is pro-abortion, while Ron Paul is the only candidate definitely opposed to abortion. He is the author of a bill in Congress that, if approved, would declare all unborn entitled to the protection of the law. This would make abortion illegal in all the states, while undoing Roe Vs Wade would shift the question back to each individual state.

Nic, this is the book I referred to regarding the effect of violence such as rape: Karr-Morse, Robin, and Meredith S. Wiley. Ghosts from the Nursery. NY: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1997.

When I first heard of Ron Paul, I thought - wow, he sounds like a pretty radical guy - bucking some of the top-down idiocy we've been dealing with lately. But then I heard rumblings. Rumblings that perhaps Paul was [to be more gracious than I feel like] less-than-stellar in his beliefs about racism/white-supremacy.

Yes, there are many sites out there willing to rip Paul a new one because of what they've heard/personal differences/etc... but after reading some of the allegations [supported by Stormfront Radio (see youtube), accepting money from neo-nazis (various sites - google 'Ron Paul and white nationalists')]- I decided to go to the source: his own website. [http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/]

Paul fails to address any direct accusations, and instead uses the forum to give an explanation of his own feelings/beliefs about race. After reading the piece, one thought lingers with me more than the others

"Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations."

Nice sentiment. And I know a lot of people that would buy it. But it only sounds nice. Bigotry IS a 'problem of the heart', which is why it's not illegal to be a bigot. Influencing people's hearts is done over time, through many different outlets - but in the meantime, are the victims of bigotry to just sit on their hands and wait? Or should the government [which has had a hand in perpetuating the institutional racism set up long before any of us were born, and thus has its own debt to repay] step in and counteract the negative effects of bigotry in the sectors it can influence [employment, education, politics, housing, finance]?

I find his rhetoric insidious, in that it appeals to something inside many who would like a bit more of a status quo maintained but long to convince everyone [including themselves] that they really are NOT racist [apparently, racist is the worst thing anyone can be called, these days, apart from, maybe 'terrorist'. Yet if we are honest with ourselves, growing up in this society means learning racism - often internalizing it. Recognizing this fact, and being willing to accept that we may not be as shiny and loving as we thought, is what _actually_ puts us on the right road. But I digress...]

My point: Ron Paul does not seem to me to be a candidate I could support. Plain and simple, because he does not seem to be a candidate that would support me.

---sorry so long. hope I've made sense, though.

jen*

Interesting discussion. Dennis Kucinich is my man but it appears he doesn't have a prayer and I understand he's asked his supporters to switch their allegiance to Obama. I like much of what Barak says, but like the others, he has switched positions in view of the prevailing political winds. I also like much of what I hear Edwards saying, so at this point, I guess I'm still undecided.

What I do know is that I believe this country of ours cannot take any more "compassionate conservatism." the last seven years have shown what a farce that oxymoron is. And I am amazed how many SDAs still vote Republican even though the GOP panders to the rich and powerful (maybe it's a Freudian thing).

I just finished reading an excellent book discussing the relationship of Christianity and politics. It's titled "The Politics of Jesus" written by Obery M. Hendricks, Jr., Professor of Biblical Interpretation at the New York Theological Seminary and an ordained A.M.E.minister. I don't buy all of his exegesis, but he makes a persuasive argument as to how Christians ought to engage politics as faithful followers of Jesus.

If what Christianity Today reported on Ron Paul a few month ago is correct, he supposedly never resorted to abort and unborn to safe the mothers life, in all of 4,000+ babies he delivered. Several decades ago, the Wall Street Journal published the story about a son in his 40-50th whose mother, when carrying him she was told by her Doctor, that is it either your life or that of your unborn. Evidently the son somehow learned about it so one day he summoned all the courage necessary and point blank asked his mother: Mother, why did you do that at the expense of your own life? To which this mother gave him this answer: I was currious to find out what kind of a man you would eventually become! Yes, the son became a man for the good of humanity! God only knows how many millions this Nation under God and claims to trust God, while out there all over the world at gun point, claiming to bring freedom to all peoples, while America is already the mass grave of 40 - 50+ millions of unborn babies and its butcher shops continue in operation, and to add insult to injury we now have a President, leading out in the most threatening way ever, whose hero is Jesus, with the evermore inhumane and horrendous war machinery ever, who himsef claims that abortion is murder, and in pure blasspheme he "demands" God to bless America, while the most Conservative Christians are furiously in support of him on this now ever more a bogus war in pursuit of oil and really nothing else, if what I read and hear is correct. Yes, most Americans do not really know that it is oil that has America shooting out there and really sort of to "hell" with human lifes, so America can keep on its ever more materialistic and really pagan pursuits, on the dangerous road of Imperialism! My prayer for America goes like this: Please, dear God, hold your peace just a while longer per chance there is repentance by this nation under God and says it trusts in God, but is evermore more deep in sin. Yes, I have great faith that no matter how deep in sin a human might be and that of a Nation, I am a firm believer in the human spirit, otherwise the Apostle Paul, would never be spoken off. Yes, I am no preacher nor Theologian, but a 4th generation Advenstist, but fearful that this Church of mine is presently heading straight for the iceberg! In reality insulting the very Jesus who spend 9 month in the womb of his earthly mother, in essence by extension, declaring him to be just a magnificent life and not that of human being at conception. Yes, to also add insult to injury, a trend within Adventism that sex is mostly the reason that it was given to humans, where procreation takes second or even third place, yes, and giving really room to the evils of abortion. God only knows how many millions are spent by Adventist in contraception, while divorce is rampant, and fornication not far behind.

However, the real difference between our present President of George W. who is an awowed prolife Christian; Ron Paul, wants also to honor God himself and the Founding Fathers to use other that the despicable way of ever more guns Hitler style, as is presently the fever of this President, as so well stated by George Washington and actually promoted by Ron Paul every time he speaks. Yes, here are those sacred words spoken so long ago under great sacrifice: "It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may ve co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn". America has and is still failing that test, and actually is outhere creating problems in pursuit of material gain and in reality to "hell" with human lifes. Yes, George Washington also said this: "Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican liberty". Yet America today is circling the globe with its pagan and cruel war machinery. Yes, Dwight D. Eisenhower basically repeated the same in his farewell address as well. Eisenhower also said this: "Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft of from those who hunger and are not fed, from those who are cold and not clothed". Yes, America now wastes trillions upon trillions in this diabolic war machinery worse that Hitler ever really did. Yes, and speaking of hunger: The Wall Street Journal a few month ago reprted on front page that in 2006 over 35.5 millions of Americans went hungry for some time during that year, while at the same time American now spends more than 38 billions a years for dogs and pets of all kinds. Yes spends over 5 billions yearly in tribute to Satan himself as it celebrates Hollween. Yes, I am a legal immigrant of 52 years and a Staunch Conservative Christian Respublican, and find that I know much more as to hopes and dreams of the Founding Fathers than most Americans born in America. Of course a schooling system now impossed dictator like upon the American people in tribute to Socialism/Communism cannot teach Democracy, hence such ignorance. Yes, a nation now in complete bankrupt state as Socialism/Communism is eat the very heart of America, in reality paying tribute to the Soviet Union. Ron Paul is actually picking up where Ronald Reagan left off. Yes, if Ronald Reagan had been immortal and president for life, Russia and America would be the best of allies, while now being driven along with other nations right back into the cold war era. Imperialism, has a complete choke hold on America, and very sadly furiously supported by most Conservative Christians, making Christianity really look like the evil of the world.

As a SDA I dont think there's anything more horrific than an abortion. It's wrong, no matter what, even rape. Research has shown that even in the case of rape, killing the baby only makes matter worse for the woman who now has a double emotional load to deal with. Plus, abortion IS THE BIGGEST RISK for a pregnant woman, not the pregnancy itself. Cynics have created this option when risk pregnancies numbers are so infinitely small...

Now, what did Bush do about that? All George Bush did in 8 years was sink us in a recession, while the oil companies report their biggest gains ever, to name one example of corporate greed. And mind you, he did nothing to stop abortion, in 8 years as president so his promise as a conservative fell flat!!

I never really cared for Obama until I started reading his book The Audacity of Hope. After watching the debates and how articulate, intelligent, positive and honest he is, I'm behind him all the way. I'm delighted he won in Iowa and New Hampshire is very promising!!

I've had enough of these phony evangelicals dictating policy. They're trying to institute a Theocracy when God did not give them this job! Ron Paul has 0 chance of becoming the nominee so Obama is the next best choice, unless, of course, you want to elect a bigot former Baptist pastor for 4 or 8 more years of Sunday Keeping, gay killing, Bible thumping evangelicals governing the country!!

"Elaine suggested that the government role should not include the making of theological decisions regarding the beginning of human life. My answer is: The beginning of human life is a physiological question. If human life begins at conception, then the government’s duty is to protect such life."

You at least put the modifier there: "IF human life begins at conception..." There is no consensus with The Supremes on this; nor is there consensus within the population or even the church. That being the case, the beginning of human life has not been defined uncategorically.

Some of us are old enough to remember when dispensing birth control INFORMATION or contraceptives was illegal, and only in the 60s was that changed (in Connecticut). The Roman Catholic church still adamantly opposes birth control measures; a position which is almost universally ignored by its members.

The country with the highest number of abortions is Russia; and the people there are totally ignorant about birth control (this is information furnished from a lecturer who has spoken many times in Russia on sex, which is not taught there). Shall we return to the days of old when mothers died from heavy child-bearing: 12-16 children were not uncommon?

The question has been posed of different candidates: If abortion is made illegal, who shall be punished, and what should the punishment be? The physician, the woman, or?

There can never be a law unaccompanied by a legal punishment. So far, there has been reluctance, thankfully, to go down that road to a theocracy. The first amendment protects us from any establishment of religion. When human life and the soul begins is a theological question which has never been agreed upon within the religious community.

Some of us are old enough to remember when birth control information and contraceptives were illegal and only allowed in Conn. as late as the 60s. Shall we return to the "good old days" when women were kept pregnant and had 12-16 children?

Russia can claim to be the country with the most abortions. Women there are ignorant of sex and birth control (this has been reported many times to me, personally, by an SDA lecturer who had spoken many times there on this subject). Unles we wish to return to the "good old days", ONLY women who are able to be impregnated and give birth, with their physician should make such a decision about abortion. What others think is unimportant. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson about religion: "Whether my neighbor has one or 10 abortions, it neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg." Such extremely personal positions are NOMB (none of my business).

Such shows a really weak view of human life. How can anyone justify the deliberate destruction of an innocent human being?

Any mother should think about that day when she first found out she was pregnant. What did she think of the being growing within her? Did she think it merely a speck of cells? Did she think it anything other than a baby? What did she tell her husband--I have a growth of cells? No, she said "We're pregnant," or "We're having a baby." She grew excited as she felt it move, as she saw the shape of its head and its toes on the ultrasound. Every mother who has a miscarriage grieves--not at the loss of a few cells, but at the loss of a baby. It is a death in the family. To turn around and say abortion is not the deliberate taking of human life is to slap in the face every mother who has ever wondered at the awe of the life she carried within her.

If any political party claims to speak for the weak and helpless and does not protect the most fragile of human life, its claims are fraudulent.

Adventist pioneers had no problem seeing temperance as a moral issue, and they joined hands with all others who sought to enact temperance legislation. They saw slavery as a moral issue, and as James White said in 1860, because of this every Adventist who voted that year did so for Abraham Lincoln, because the moral question was so clear to them.

Adventists stand for the inviolability of the ten commandments. As noted by one person, one of those is "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Why do we quibble about details of how to observe some of the others and leave such gaping holes in this one which seems so clear?

I'm happy to say it was from Adventists I learned to be pro-life. I think especially of a Week of Prayer speaker at AUC ca. 1981 who gave a memorable and moving presentation on this important subject.

I wasn't aware that I was commenting on abortion. There are too many sins going on in the world for me to be a single issue voter.

I agree with Ron Paul's libertarian leanings when it comes to 'defense' policy and checks and balances, but what about a functional social safety net? Pros and cons-pros and cons...

Watch "The Trap" and see that pursuing freedom on an ideological basis leads to tyranny--whether it's of the market or of the politburo doesn't make much difference.

Let me make another observation about Alex's heading, based in response to a blog post elsewhere by another pastor.

Ryan and I weren't writing as "pastors" any more than we were "facing off." Several bloggers (and a couple of others) were asked to contribute to this; as it turned out, we were the only two who responded. Speaking for myself, my political involvement goes back several years, and I am having to cut back now--no more being a delegate to senatorial district and state conventions, because they meet on Sabbath. I've been a blogger for five 1/2 years, and have blogged about all kinds of issues--things that I never discuss at church. No, I don't have political bumper stickers on my car, either. What I wanted to emphasize here were the principles I value more than anything else--values that I think are consistent with the Adventist tradition. That's what each of us was asked to do.

Just by way of clarification. :-)

Fair enough. I appreciate both Bill and Ryan for contributing. As I write in my introduction, their occupation is especially significant as most Adventist pastors are, or at least create the impression of being, apolitical.

I choose the title with some irony and clearly too much brio. Both Bill and Ryan expressed their viewpoints with passion -- not mainstream cynicism -- tempered with obvious thoughtfulness --not mere reaction. I wanted to draw attention to an instance of Adventist pastors approaching the touchiest of topics (supporting a political candidate) without it actually meaning that the apocalypse was nigh (for them).

And there's something to be said for that apolitical stance, insofar as it comes to endorsing particular candidates. Yesterday someone pointed out to me chapter 61 of Fundamentals of Christian Education. That led me to modify the post on my blog that corresponds to this one, and to take my political blog off-line. Oh, I'm still going to post strongly on issues--but I'm taking a step back from attaching a particular name to it. I'll post some further reflections on this topic in a few weeks.

Chris--I'm just a tad bit jealous about your geographic location--I'd love to be in a state that candidates actually visited. Being a Californian, we pretty much get ignored. I do have to say that I'd like a shorter election cycle--I'm not sure I can take 11 more months of this! Instead of having more time to go deeper on issues, the candidates just seem to get better and better at their sound bites.

I'm definitely not a one-issue voter, and I really don't get the sense that most of the country is this time around either--look what it got us last time. So, with that in mind, I'm trying to ignore Nic/H.D's screeds about abortion. I always find it ironic that men are the most vocal and adamant on this issue; women know that the issue is nuanced and complex, hence the lack of megaphones.

While I haven't firmly decided yet, every time I watch a debate or read coverage of one, I'm more and more impressed by Obama as a candidate who speaks his heart and has the potential to unite. Ryan expressed my sentiments well--there's an intangible quality about him that makes me believe again.

Bill,
As long as it is "not from the pulpit" and your sermons remain "biblical"and you don't "speak for your church"... I wouldn't worry about it.

Thank you Dear Jesus for not one, but at least TWO of the professional, ordained clergy, Elders Bill Cork and Ryan Bell, of OUR church [that's your church, Jesus, and mine] who have recieved the clear message which YOU provided for us
in Matt 22:21; Mk 12:17; Lk 20:25, namely that whereas by definition the locus of authority in the representative form of democratic government [Ceasar] is vested in its hoi poli [citizens] at the bottom of that government [Ceasar], it
therefore becomes incumbent upon those citizens to exercise
[render] that authority in a responsible way if they are to, "Render therefore unto Ceasar the things which are Ceasars."

Many years ago when my parents, evangelical Christians but not SDA's, were living in a Chicago suburb, a distant relative who had become the chairman of the Democratic Central Committee of a distant county in PA came with his wife to stay with us while he attended the Democratic National Convention being held in the "new" Chicago Stadium. His wife, who had a pass to seats in the rafters of that huge stadium, took me with her to the convention the night that Patrick Nash was recognized from the floor to nominate Franklin Delano Roosevelt for president.

Patrick Nash was the Nash of the Kelly/Nash political machine
which controlled Chicago city hall, and whose large
construction company was always awarded Chicago's multimillion dollar sewer contracts during the days of the Great Depression. Ever since that night the Republicans charged that Roosevelt was nominated by, "a voice from the sewer." That didn't bother me, because from that day at age nine I became a life long political junkie and walked my first precinct just a few weeks later, knocking on doors, handing out literature, and saying in a loud voice,

"Hello! I'm a street walker for Franklin Delano Roosevelt!"

A nice middle aged lady answered the first door on which I had knocked, and promptly tried to correct my pitch with this question.

"Little boy, don't you mean to say that you are a precinct walker?"

"Precinct walker, street walker, what's the difference? I just want you to vote for Franklin Delano Roosevelt!"

The dear lady gasped, shut the door in my face and I went on my merry way knocking on doors in the rest of the precinct.
By the way, Roosevelt won, and to this very day I believe that he could not have won without my help.

[Since those many years ago I've tried to get someone to tell me the difference between a, "street walker," and a, "precinct walker" Not even SPECTRUM'S editor, Bonnie Dwyer, will explain the difference.]

Having spent two years in 1948-49 converting from aetheisim/agnosticisim to SDAisim - trying to determine the difference between Sister White, Mary Baker Eddy and Joseph Smith [Fortunately the acceptance of Sister White's divine
inspiration was not on the baptisimal certificates back then], and developing a compromise on the sancturary doctrine - it never occurred to me to check with the brethren on matters of political registration at the time of my baptisim in September, 1950. I had participated at the precinct level in the successful upset re-election of President Harry Truman over Thomas Dewey in 1948, and had become involved in the off-year congressional elections for 1950. It was a bit of a shock to learn from my new brothers and sisters of the faith in Arcata, CA that: [1] SDA Christians - as if there were other kinds of Christians - did not become involved in politics; [b] God was an Anglo Saxon, registered Republican - conclusions supported by the brethern in the NCC office 300+ miles away in Oakland, CA. All you had to do was to look at a candidates political registration and right away you would know who God wanted you to support with your vote.

Today this situation has improved slightly. The brethern from GC to local conference office have conceded that God might not necessarily be Anglo Saxon, and could be Black African or even Chinese. However, we have the assurance that God is a registered Republican.

This explains why most USA SDA's, who claim to believe in separtion of church and state and sponsor a Religious Liberty Department and magazine,"LIBERTY," stupidly voted for the "family values of compassionate conservatisim" as espoused by a "born again Republican" and his political entourage who has, and continues to be, the greatest threat to separation of church and state in the history of this country.

If God would let me gamble, and still admit me to Heaven, I'd bet the farm that most SDA's will vote for Huckabee! Not because he is a "born again" candidate. Jimmy Carter was a "born again candidate," but very few SDA's voted for Carter because he wasn't a "born again" REPUBLICAN! Huckabee is a "born again" REPUBLICAN who would make the USA a Christian nation, which is just what - in my opinion - most USA SDA's want!

"O Lord, how long?" Ps 6:3

Brantley,

I hope your last paragraph is wrong. I guess I grew up thinking that others were like me [as most of us do] and that -of course- Adventists would vote Democrat - since they were more in line with the causes of Jesus [equality, social care] and they were against the rule of tyranny that tends to follow any marriage between church and state.

In the imagination of the child raised conservative Adventist, it seemed to me that the Republicans would be the ones informing on us to the government, during the time of trouble. Maybe this was a fanciful conclusion from my youth, but my distrust of the GOP remains to this day [though it's compounded by their lack of compassion toward minorities and the poor].

jen*

For that soul (likely rare) who likes Obama, and also likes Hitchens, this essay is on Slate...

http://www.slate.com/id/2181460/

I want to thank Spectrum for providing a platform for those with moral conviction where they can express their opinion on issues dear to their hearts. I believe that voting is a sacred duty which Christians should exercise with care and thoughtfulness, since the consequences of choosing the wrong candidate has such far reaching consequences.

Is there an ideal candidate for the highest office in our country? Probably not! I voted for Bush twice, and look at the result! I congratulated myself for my choice when he nominated conservative individuals for the Supreme Court, when he lowered our taxes and thus avoided another economic recession, and when he signed the bill outlawing the partial-birth abortion.

But then, I lamented the fact that he introduced the horrendous Preemptive Strike doctrine which led us into the Iraq quagmire and resulted in the death of over 3,000 American soldiers and the killing of hundreds of thousand Iraqis. Conclusion? There is no ideal candidate. Now I understand how God must have felt when his chosen “Republican” king, Saul, deviated from his mission and focused his energies against David who had done him no wrong.

Obama sounds like a good candidate, and he talks about hope, and he is quite eloquent. Who can be against hope? Nevertheless, he offers no hope for the unborn, since he favors the killing of the unborn. Could I vote for him? I don’t think so. It goes against my religion! Taking the life of an innocent human being is a violation of the Sixth Commandment, and the injunction against the shedding of innocent blood. The Bible condemns this, and our SDA pioneers did the same, including James White, the founder of our publishing work, and his wife, Ellen White, the most prolific and influential SDA writer.

What other option do I have? Hillary? She says she is against abortion, but she is determined to make sure abortion is “available, safe, and rare.” Well, I do not see how making abortion available can make it “rare.” It will never be rare, even if we make it illegal again. But look what happened when we legalized abortion: according to data provided by Planned Parenthood, abortion mushroomed overnight into a million and a half unborn babies per year.

Who else is a viable candidate? Ron Paul? I don’t think so! I do like his position on abortion. He is the only candidate who submitted to Congress a bill, which if approved, would offer full protection for the unborn from the moment of conception, which would do more than overturning Roe vs. Wade: It would make abortion illegal in the entire country, while overturning Roe vs. Wade would simply send the issue back to the states.

Why do I doubt his electability? He is a libertarian. Has ever a libertarian been elected to the presidency of the U.S.? His dream is to dismantle the military, the IRS, the Education department, and leave merely a skeleton government in its place. Conclusion: I don’t believe he has a chance of being elected. Hugo stated above that he is the heir to the Reagan mantra. Really? Reagan strengthened the military, while Ron Paul is planning to outdo Bill Clinton who dismantled 2/3 of our military strength.

How about Giuliani? He knows by experience how to reduce crime, and how to balance a budget. He is electable. Nevertheless, he is unwilling to put a stop to the murder of the unborn, and we are talking of a million and a half of our own unborn children every year. He is unwilling to protect them, and is planning to leave them at the mercy of those who profit from the killing of the unborn, for which reason I have discarded him as well. I could almost say the same about McCain.

Finally there is Mike Huckabee. Is he electable? I am not sure. He did well in Iowa, but he is doing very poorly in New Hampshire. Some reports claim that he is soft on crime. In synthesis, there is no ideal candidate, and if there were one, he might later surprise us with a bombshell like Bush did when he embraced the preemptive strike doctrine and initiated a war on unreliable intelligence report against a country that had not attacked us.

Regarding the abortion issue, Elaine stated that nobody knows when human life begins. She seems to imply by this that in case of doubt it is ok to take the life of the unborn. This bothers me! I thought that the wise thing to do in case of doubt is to err on the side of caution, since we are dealing with human life. She also claims that the beginning of human life is a theological question. I agree, but it also concerns the government, because the role of the government is to protect human life.

Leaving this question in limbo creates only confusion. Consider the Scott Peterson case. Was this a single or a double murder? If the unborn is not a human being, then Scott should have been convicted of a single murder instead of a double one. When an abortion is performed, the nurse has to reassemble a human body. She has to make sure there is a head, a torso, two arms, and two legs. How can we pretend that this is simply a conglomerate of cells?

Not long ago I had a long debate with a young and extremely talented young SDA physician who told me performing an abortion for him was the equivalent of removing an appendix. I heard similar comments from some of the most renowned Loma Linda University teachers and ethicists. This bothers me a great deal.

Daneen stated above that the most adamant defenders of the unborn are man. Thanks for the compliment! James White was also a male, and I doubt that anybody can match his strong condemnation of the practice of abortion. I could cite many other SDA pioneers who were also male and adamant in their condemnation of abortion. Don’t forget that those who legalized abortion were also male, and if men got us into this mess, then men should be in the forefront in its undoing!

Brantley stated above that God is a Republican. I knew that, this is why I have been voting for Republican candidates. Most of them, at least before election, claim to be on the side of the sanctity of life. Of course, quite often they say this because they want my vote, and I can’t pin them down after they are comfortably seated behind the Oval Desk.

Hello Bob Rigsby!

The article you recommended in SLATE was a good one which I had already read. Here is another introspective, thought-provoking article, "Lambased for Not Drinking the Obama Kool-aid," which was written by a black professor, Michael K. Fauntroy, who specializes in studies of race in American politics at George Mason U. <<>>

Hello Nic Samojluk!

If you are not aware of the latest poll info on Huckabee, the following should warm the cockles of your old political heart.
Huckabee is way ahead in SC polls and is expected to win big in that state. There is now a consensus among several major political pollsters that if Huckabee wins big in SC, that fact, combined with his big win in lilly white IA, will make him the candidate to beat for the R. nomination.

Since the presidential campaign has much more texture than a narrowly envisioned human sexuality issue (indeed, when has a presidential campaign *ever* been about abortion alone - and why do people continue to push it as THE issue?!), I have put together a video expressing my sentiments about Barack Obama's candidacy and his rise to front runner status.

The burgeoning support for Obama by Independents and Republicans demonstrates that this election is indeed about more than a pocketful of traditional values issues. It demonstrates that Americans to a large degree are tired of smoldering feuds along ideological divides. Americans certainly seem ready to move beyond partisan hostilities. I certainly am.

Nic,

One of us misunderstood Brantley - I'm hoping it was you. I didn't understand him to be saying that God is a Republican - at all.

Personally, I've always gotten the impression that Jesus espoused profoundly socialist ideals [which is actually how I expect heaven to be - considering that we'll all be perfect there, and the sharing thing will work].

I am truly saddened that so many brothers [it seems to be mostly brothers] have become so enamoured with the party I envision bringing about persecution to those who do not believe as they do. Or do you guys even believe that will happen?

jen*

Hello jen!

You are quite right about my earlier post concerning God being a Republican, and I even think Nic also understood what I meant and was just having some fun with that concept. You and Nic,and hopefully others will find my next post of special interest. But first I acknowledge that Nic is dead sserious about the issue of abortion, and though I differ with him, I respect him for his concerns.

Hello Nic!

In one of your earlier posts you expressed an interest in Huckabee, with some doubts as to his viability as a candidate. Here is some info that will warm the cockles of your dear old Republican heart.

There is now a concensus among several of the more successful political pollsters that Huckabee is way ahead in the polls in SC, and will be the winner there by a substantial margin. If Huckabee wins BIG in SC, that, plus his big upset win in lilly white IA, will make him a big winner in the south, which in turn will make him the candidate to beat if any of the other R candidates are to win the R nomination.

Jared: That was a good video, and your choice of background music was super. I am for change! Will Obama’s change include our policy towards the unborn? Our misguided Iraqi war is responsible for the death of close to 4,000 American lives, and hundreds of thousands Iraqis. This is tragic, but more tragic is the death of our own children. The future of our country has been decimated by the loss of fifty millions of American unborn future citizens who could be alive and working today to support our failing retirement fund.

Among these, there are thousands who were aborted by our own Adventist members, and we lament the fact that our church is not growing and that we are forced to close many SDA schools! How can it grow, if we are decimating the future generation of our church members? Look at some of the countries where abortion is still illegal: The church is growing, and they are building SDA schools non-stop!

To top this, our younger folk are postponing marriage and the raising of kids, which adds to the shortage of young folk in our church. The children of one of my friends got married when they were over forty, and another of my friends who has two children, one of them got married when he was over forty, and the other one is almost the same age with no marriage proposal from her fiancée. Does it make sense for us to make things worse by justifying the abortion of the unborn?

Shygirlj: Yes, Brantley is right. I know that God is not a Republican, although sometimes I think that he might get close to being one. I tend to vote Republican, but in fact I prefer to identify myself as an Independent. I have been accused of being a one issue voter. This is not exactly true. I do prioritize the political issues, and for me there is no other issue as important right now as the issue of abortion.

In this respect, I follow the example of Abraham Lincoln. He also did prioritize the political issues of his time. His economic plan for the U.S. was a disaster, but he was right on his determination to free the blacks from slavery. We don’t remember him for his failed economic program, but rather for his moral stand regarding slavery. Likewise, I am determined to do what I can to free the unborn from execution for their terrible crime of waiting to be allowed to see the light of day.

To accomplish this objective, I have devoted ten years of my life to work half time--add honorem--on this project. I don’t have much to show for my efforts, except for a pro-life news website, and a doctoral dissertation dealing with the issue. It is entitled: “From Pro-life to Pro-choice: the Dramatic Shift of Seventh-day Attitudes Towards Abortion.” Here are the Internet links to my web site and to my doctoral dissertation: http://www.sdaforum.com and http://www.sdaforum.com/page13.html.