Posted on 12/21/2008 10:09:35 PM PST by Lorianne
I think we are all entitled to ask and to keep asking every member of the Obama transition team until we receive a satisfactory answer, the following questions:
___ Will Warren be invited to the solemn ceremony of inauguration without being asked to repudiate what he has directly said to deny salvation to Jews?
___ Will he be giving a national invocation without disowning what his mentor said about civil rights and what his leading supporter says about Mormons?
___ Will the American people be prayed into the next administration, which will be confronted by a possible nuclear Iran and an already nuclear Pakistan, by a half-educated pulpit-pounder raised in the belief that the Armageddon solution is one to be anticipated with positive glee?
As Barack Obama is gradually learning, his job is to be the president of all Americans at all times. If he likes, he can oppose the idea of marriage for Americans who are homosexual. That's a policy question on which people may and will disagree. However, the man he has chosen to deliver his inaugural invocation is a relentless clerical businessman who raises money on the proposition that certain Americans—non-Christians, the wrong kind of Christians, homosexuals, nonbelievers—are of less worth and littler virtue than his own lovely flock of redeemed and salvaged and paid-up donors.
This quite simply cannot stand. Is it possible that Obama did not know the ideological background of his latest pastor? The thought seems plausible when one recalls the way in which he tolerated the odious Jeremiah Wright. Or is it possible that he does know the background of racism and superstition and sectarianism but thinks (as with Wright) that it might be politically useful in attracting a certain constituency? Either of these choices is pretty awful to contemplate.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
The guy is a fraud. Says he’s Christian, say he’s against abortion— yet he signals his approval for President Infanticide.
Political ambition driven life.
I get it. Hitchens doesn't like Christians. OK. Doesn't like God much, either.
Hitchens is a good writer, and when he's right he really knocks it out of the park. But he's really got a hangup about God.
He has sold a lot of books though.
One day, he will see the light...get my drift.
Warren is a two faced hypocrite.
Obama KNOWS Warren is more than eager to compromise PRINCIPLE to gain more POWER. This is nothing new for Warren. Read his books. See compromise in action.
Warren is practically giddy over the idea!
Rep. Frank Opposes Warren Invocation at Inauguration
... Although Warren has said that he has nothing personally against gays, he has condemned same-sex marriage.
“I have many gay friends. I’ve eaten dinner in gay homes. No church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church,” he said in a recent interview with BeliefNet. But later in the interview, he compared the “redefinition of marriage” to include gay marriage to legitimizing incest, child abuse and polygamy.
Warren, in a speech on Saturday, said he took “enormous heat” three years ago for inviting Obama to speak at his church, even though the two men disagree on some issues. “Now he’s invited me,” Warren said.
...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/21/rep-frank-opposes-warren-invocation-inauguration/
For the life of me, I can’t imagine Christ having a infacticde candidate come to His church to speak or parade around with him.
-Hitchens doesn’t believe in salvation for anybody (comes with the whole atheist gig).
-I’ve personally heard him saying some truly uncharitable things about Mormons in particular.
-Oh, come’on, the third point is just plain silly.
First Hitchens points out that believing one can only be saved by accepting Christ is a central tenant of Christianity, then turns around and suggests that unless Warren repudiates such a belief it is evidence that he believes "certain Americans—non-Christians, the wrong kind of Christians, homosexuals, nonbelievers—are of less worth and littler virtue". Which of course misses the whole point of Christianity, that a Christian isn't saved because he is more virtuous, but by accepting the sacrifice made by Jesus. I'm not even a Christian myself, but I get it, and see no reason why any non-Christian should be offended. If I am building an airplane and someone tells me it's going to crash, why should I be offended, whether I believe it or not?
Hitchens’ blind side is exposed here. It isn’t flattering:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1932911/posts?page=4#4
Warren is in it for Warren and nobody else.
Rick Warren is a new ager cloaked as a man of God.
Preachers are politicians. Power is their game.
Perhaps Rick Warren can influence President elect Obama away from the radical philosophy of the Reverend Wright. I do not fault the Pastor at all for accepting this position; it doesn't sanctify immoral policy in my view. Refusal would be petulant and immature of the Pastor.
Will Warren be invited to the solemn ceremony of inauguration without being asked to repudiate what he has directly said to deny salvation to Jews?
Why should a person be required to deny their religion?
Did the writer ask that Obama deny his muslim heritage before he became President?
Obama was first willing to attend the Warren campaign forum with McCain and now choose Warren to invocate at the inauguration because Warren has said that Evangelicals should consider that social justice and environmental justice are just as important as right to life, homosexuality, and stem cells.
Social Justice voters are democratic voters.
ping for later
Out of curiosity, what is Judaism's position on the salvation of Christians, and are they constantly hassled to repudiate it?
Sadly when they read Jesus saying Feed my sheep they think it is a commandment to set up soup lines. And they do not care who gets required to pay for it.
Social gospellers have taken the commands Jesus spoke to individuals as their responsibility and transferred it to the responsibility of government.
Bible is clear about what government should do: protect society from anarchy, execute justice for crimes. That sort of thing.
I think it’d be fine if Warren wants to counsel President Infanticide or somehow convince him of the error of his ways.
But to participate in his inauguration I think sends the wrong message on killing infants. I don’t think any pastor should give the invocation of any killer of infants’ inauguration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.