The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission | Expired Security Act Jeopardizes America’s Safety | Comments http://erlc.com/ This feed provides all comments on "Expired Security Act Jeopardizes America’s Safety." en web-master@erlc.com ℗ & © 2008 ERLC Comment 1 http://erlc.com/article/expired-security-act-jeopardizes-americas-safety#comment1 http://erlc.com/article/expired-security-act-jeopardizes-americas-safety#comment1 I objected to this when I received the action alert and that objection still stands. The ERLC and its leader are using Cooperative Program funds to promote one side of a purely partisan political issue. Whether you are for or against the Intelligence Foreign Surveillance Act should have no bearing on whether you consider this to be an appropriate use of funds by an SBC agency.

]]> Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:49:18 CST Comment 2 http://erlc.com/article/expired-security-act-jeopardizes-americas-safety#comment2 http://erlc.com/article/expired-security-act-jeopardizes-americas-safety#comment2 RE: Richard Cheek,

A Senate vote of 68-29 seems hardly “purely partisan”.

]]> Wed, 05 Mar 2008 12:45:45 CST Comment 3 http://erlc.com/article/expired-security-act-jeopardizes-americas-safety#comment3 http://erlc.com/article/expired-security-act-jeopardizes-americas-safety#comment3 In a body as evenly divided as the senate, when 100% of the opposition is from one party, I would call it a partisan issue. But that really isn’t the point of my complaint. I would not care if it had passed unanimously, it is still not an appropriate subject to take a “biblical” stand on.

]]> Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:38:11 CST Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:50:35 CST Comment 4 http://erlc.com/article/expired-security-act-jeopardizes-americas-safety#comment4 http://erlc.com/article/expired-security-act-jeopardizes-americas-safety#comment4 RE: “...when 100% of the opposition is from one party, I would call it a partisan issue.”

Fair enough. But by that reasoning, do you mean that when any given issue is made “partisan” by, as you defined it, 100% opposition is by one party or another, SBC-ers should keep quite? 

If this is not what you mean, then I suggest that the “partisanship” of any given issue should not determine whether or not SBC-ers engage an issue.  After all, the abortion debate has clearly become as a “partisan” issue by that reasoning. Should the ERLC stop “promoting one side” on that issue?

But to your main point… I understand you to say that Southern Baptists should not be voicing their opinion on policies that directly relate to a government’s biblical responsibility to protect its people and “punish the evil doer?” This is, after all, a national security issue, agreed?

Or does the Bible have nothing to say on that front?

]]> Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:50:35 CST