Thursday, May 28, 2009
FOX NEWS
Pastor David Jones and his wife Mary have been told that they cannot invite friends to their San Diego, Calif. home for a Bible study — unless they are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to San Diego County.
"On Good Friday we had an employee from San Diego County come to our house, and inform us that the Bible study that we were having was a religious assembly, and in violation of the code in the county." David Jones told FOX News.
"We told them this is not really a religious assembly — this is just a Bible study with friends. We have a meal, we pray, that was all," Jones said.
A few days later, the couple received a written warning that cited "unlawful use of land," ordering them to either "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit," the couple's attorney Dean Broyles told San Diego news station 10News.
But the major use permit could cost the Jones' thousands of dollars just to have a few friends over.
For David and Mary Jones, it's about more than a question of money.
"The government may not prohibit the free exercise of religion," Broyles told FOX News. "I believe that our Founding Fathers would roll over in their grave if they saw that here in the year 2009, a pastor and his wife are being told that they cannot hold a simple Bible study in their own home."
"The implications are great because it’s not only us that’s involved," Mary Jones said. "There are thousands and thousands of Bible studies that are held all across the country. What we’re interested in is setting a precedent here — before it goes any further — and that we have it settled for the future."
The couple is planning to dispute the county's order this week.
If San Diego County refuses to allow the pastor and his wife to continue gathering without acquiring a permit, they will consider a lawsuit in federal court.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
This Is Scary!
Wisconsin Court Upholds GPS Tracking by PoliceBy RYAN J. FOLEY Associated Press Writer
2:42 PM CDT, May 7, 2009
MADISON, Wis. - Wisconsin police can attach GPS to cars to secretly track anybody's movements without obtaining search warrants, an appeals court ruled Thursday.However, the District 4 Court of Appeals said it was "more than a little troubled" by that conclusion and asked Wisconsin lawmakers to regulate GPS use to protect against abuse by police and private individuals.As the law currently stands, the court said police can mount GPS on cars to track people without violating their constitutional rights -- even if the drivers aren't suspects.Officers do not need to get warrants beforehand because GPS tracking does not involve a search or a seizure, Judge Paul Lundsten wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel based in Madison.
Related links
That means "police are seemingly free to secretly track anyone's public movements with a GPS device," he wrote.One privacy advocate said the decision opened the door for greater government surveillance of citizens. Meanwhile, law enforcement officials called the decision a victory for public safety because tracking devices are an increasingly important tool in investigating criminal behavior.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Obama's Civilian Army... Service Required!
Earlier in the campaign the Obama administration actually had people out looking for citizens who were "slandering" Obama. It was exactly like the "thought police" in George Orwells book "1984." Well, as some of you probably know they have already passed the "youth" version of this bill. He needs to be able to keep a watch on us "right-wing, Christian, conservatives" who are the big trouble makers in this country (yeah, sure, we're the problem.) I also think that this is thier way of getting DNA samples and fingerprints from everyone so that they can track people.I think they are doing this so when they require a "mark" of loyalty they would know which people have not taken it and would have ways to track them and their whereabouts. Maybe this will be like it is in the "Left Behind" books where the "Global Community" police patrolled the streets trying to find people who didn't have the mark so they could force it upon them, and the people who didn't take it would die. This "Civilian Army" can be used for many different things, but make no mistake, this is to extend Obama's eyes and ears into all of the nooks and crannies of the United States, and later, the world!
Even if people do not believe that Obama is the Antichrist (which he is) they can't deny that he is doing no less then setting up a dictatorship!
Please watch this video to hear Obama and Rom Emmanuel speak about this "civilian army" themselves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdwrU3Csi1E
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Free Writing Message
When I was being shown all of this in the summertime I was cleaning my house one day and had and overwhelming feeling to write down a thought that I was given, so I did. I then went back to cleaning and got that feeling again so I wrote that thought down as well. This went on for about 2 hours and when I was finished this was the product:
TRUST GOD LOVE OTHERS
God created everything and everyone and has a plan for us whether we want it or not. The more we fight it (as a whole/human race) the worse it gets eventually ending in the destruction of the world and Gods second coming to make everything new. We are destroying ourselves by trying to control Gods creation with out him. Everyone feels the need to connect to something bigger than ourselves because God put that in us so we would seek him. But people are looking to everything but him. Everything that happens is to serve Gods purpose whether we understand it or not. We need to TRUST! We are killing each other for our own gain. Natural disasters and industrial disasters keep pushing us off “our land.” We need to trust God in every single move we make because he will be coming soon!
TRUST GOD LOVE OTHERS
God created everything and everyone and has a plan for us whether we want it or not. The more we fight it (as a whole/human race) the worse it gets eventually ending in the destruction of the world and Gods second coming to make everything new. We are destroying ourselves by trying to control Gods creation with out him. Everyone feels the need to connect to something bigger than ourselves because God put that in us so we would seek him. But people are looking to everything but him. Everything that happens is to serve Gods purpose whether we understand it or not. We need to TRUST! We are killing each other for our own gain. Natural disasters and industrial disasters keep pushing us off “our land.” We need to trust God in every single move we make because he will be coming soon!
Friday, May 1, 2009
Why Can't Some People See It?
Everyone seems to be asking that question. Why can't some people see all of the obvious signs of what is going on? Well, in the bible it tells us why. In Isaiah chapter 6 an angel of the Lord tells Isaiah to "Go and tell this people: Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never percieving. Make the heart of this people calloused;make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed."(Isaiah 6:9-10)
I know this sounds unfair but we need to trust that God knows better than we do. He knows peoples hearts. I've noticed there are 4 different types of people during this time: there are people who are Christians and know that what we are saying is true, there are Religious leaders and scholars who think they have the bible all figured out and that disagree with what we are saying, there are those who are not Christians and mock us, and there are those who are not Christians but when they are told this they believe and become Chritians.
I work in an inner city school who's population is about 95% African American. This is a job that I got against all odds but I was put here for a reason, to warn people. At first I used political reasons for not liking Obama but in a school full of black students that was not taken very well. After a while students started coming up to me after class and saying that they believe that Obama is the Antichrist. When they would say this to me I then proceeded to tell them my story and the truth about Obama. Since then I have told more and more students and praise the Lord I have not been "caught" yet! As you know it is illegal to speak about religious issues in schools, but I do.There are video cameras in our classrooms and microphones so our conversations can be listened to if necessary. I have told students who believe and students who do not believe but until this day nobody has leaked any information. No one has picked up on what I am saying at all and that alone is a miracle! God obviously placed me in this school bc it was ripe for the harvest. About 200 of my students now know what is going on and know that it is true.
I realized that there were these 4 different types of people through my experiences in telling different people over the past year. Some people I will tell and it will go in one ear and out the other and they remain clueles. Other students aren't even Christians and when they hear it they turn to Christ. I know about the religious leaders through experience. I have tried to tell one of the pastors at my church and he completely blew it off and treated me like I was crazy. I have told my Dad and he believes that he has the bible all figured out and that the Antichrist has to be of Italian decent. Also, I was reading the "Left Behind" books and the authors of those books have gone on record saying that Obama is not the antichrist because he does not exactly fit THEIR interpretation of what he should be so I stopped reading the books because they obviously had not been given the insight that I thought they were.
In this area it seems to be just like when Jesus came the first time. The religious leaders thought they knew better and didn't believe he was the Messiah but the prostitutes and the tax collectors were the ones who believed, followed him, and were saved.
I am just so grateful that the Lord chose to show me things so that I can warn others. I am so thankful that I am one of the people who was protected from Obamas spell and is not lost. Do you know that it says in the bible that not only will God make it so some people can't understand but he will actually give them a strong illusion to go towards the antichrist! Like I said before, we may not understand it and we should still try to warn as many people as possible, but we need to be eternally grateful that we can see the truth!
"Hail King Obama"
CHANGING OF THE GUARD Hail King Obama: President for life Move under way to repeal Constitution's term limits
Posted: January 16, 200911:40 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.
As Inauguration Day approaches and Barack Obama prepares to assume his first term as president, some in Congress are hoping to make it possible for the Democrat to not only seek a second term in office, but a third and fourth as well.
The U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary is considering a bill that would repeal the Constitution's 22nd Amendment prohibiting a president from being elected to more than two terms in office.
Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., earlier this month introduced the bill, H. J. Res. 5, which, according to the bill's language, proposes "an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President."
In the past, some presidents have been critical of the 22nd Amendment, including Eisenhower, Clinton and Reagan.
In 1807 Thomas Jefferson, however, warned that presidents not bound by term limits could use their popularity and power to become kings.
"If some termination to the services of the chief magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution or supplied in practice," Jefferson wrote to the Legislature of Vermont, "his office, nominally for years, will in fact become for life; and history shows how easily that degenerates into an inheritance."
Presidential term limits, however, were not "fixed by the Constitution" until ratification of the 22nd Amendment. Congress passed the Amendment on March 21, 1947, shortly after the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the first and only president to be elected to more than two terms – in Roosevelt's case, four. The Amendment was ratified by the required number of states on Feb. 26, 1951.
The 22nd Amendment states, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
The Amendment limits presidents to a maximum of eight years in office – or, under unusual circumstances, such as succession following the death of a president, a maximum of ten years in office. Should Rep. Serrano succeed in repealing the Amendment, Obama would be cleared to run for an unlimited number of terms, restricted only by the vote of the electorate.
In order to achieve repeal of the 22nd Amendment, Serrano's proposal must be approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and ratified by three-quarters of the states' legislatures.
H. J. Res. 5 is not the first attempt by Serrano to repeal the 22nd Amendment. In 2003, Serrano introduced H. J. Res. 11 to the 108th Congress to accomplish the same purpose. A similar resolution, H.J. Res. 25, was also proposed the same year and received co-sponsorship from a bipartisan group of six other representatives. During Reagan's term of office, Rep. Guy Vander Jagt, R-Mich., repeatedly proposed a repeal of the 22nd Amendment.
At the current time, H.J. Res. 5 has not tallied any cosponsors and has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Prior to Franklin Roosevelt, presidents honored the precedent established by George Washington, who – though widely popular – refused to run for a third term of office.
Thomas Jefferson, who became the second vice president of the U.S. after Washington declined to run for a third term and who then later became the third president, not only affirmed following the Washington's example, but also foresaw the eventual passage of the 22nd Amendment.
"General Washington set the example of voluntary retirement after eight years," Jefferson wrote in an 1805 letter to John Taylor. "I shall follow it, and a few more precedents will oppose the obstacle of habit to anyone after a while who shall endeavor to extend his term. Perhaps it may beget a disposition to establish it by an amendment of the Constitution."
In the same letter to the Legislature of Vermont where he warned of a presidential monarchy, Jefferson further explained why he refused to run for a third term.
"Believing that a representative government, responsible at short periods of election, is that which produces the greatest sum of happiness to mankind," Jefferson wrote, "I feel it a duty to do no act which shall essentially impair that principle; and I should unwillingly be the person who, disregarding the sound precedent set by an illustrious predecessor, should furnish the first example of prolongation beyond the second term of office."
WND attempted to contact Rep. Serrano about his reasons and argument for repeal of the 22nd Amendment, but phone calls to his communications director were not returned.
By Drew Zahn© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.
As Inauguration Day approaches and Barack Obama prepares to assume his first term as president, some in Congress are hoping to make it possible for the Democrat to not only seek a second term in office, but a third and fourth as well.
The U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary is considering a bill that would repeal the Constitution's 22nd Amendment prohibiting a president from being elected to more than two terms in office.
Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., earlier this month introduced the bill, H. J. Res. 5, which, according to the bill's language, proposes "an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President."
In the past, some presidents have been critical of the 22nd Amendment, including Eisenhower, Clinton and Reagan.
In 1807 Thomas Jefferson, however, warned that presidents not bound by term limits could use their popularity and power to become kings.
"If some termination to the services of the chief magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution or supplied in practice," Jefferson wrote to the Legislature of Vermont, "his office, nominally for years, will in fact become for life; and history shows how easily that degenerates into an inheritance."
Presidential term limits, however, were not "fixed by the Constitution" until ratification of the 22nd Amendment. Congress passed the Amendment on March 21, 1947, shortly after the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the first and only president to be elected to more than two terms – in Roosevelt's case, four. The Amendment was ratified by the required number of states on Feb. 26, 1951.
The 22nd Amendment states, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
The Amendment limits presidents to a maximum of eight years in office – or, under unusual circumstances, such as succession following the death of a president, a maximum of ten years in office. Should Rep. Serrano succeed in repealing the Amendment, Obama would be cleared to run for an unlimited number of terms, restricted only by the vote of the electorate.
In order to achieve repeal of the 22nd Amendment, Serrano's proposal must be approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and ratified by three-quarters of the states' legislatures.
H. J. Res. 5 is not the first attempt by Serrano to repeal the 22nd Amendment. In 2003, Serrano introduced H. J. Res. 11 to the 108th Congress to accomplish the same purpose. A similar resolution, H.J. Res. 25, was also proposed the same year and received co-sponsorship from a bipartisan group of six other representatives. During Reagan's term of office, Rep. Guy Vander Jagt, R-Mich., repeatedly proposed a repeal of the 22nd Amendment.
At the current time, H.J. Res. 5 has not tallied any cosponsors and has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Prior to Franklin Roosevelt, presidents honored the precedent established by George Washington, who – though widely popular – refused to run for a third term of office.
Thomas Jefferson, who became the second vice president of the U.S. after Washington declined to run for a third term and who then later became the third president, not only affirmed following the Washington's example, but also foresaw the eventual passage of the 22nd Amendment.
"General Washington set the example of voluntary retirement after eight years," Jefferson wrote in an 1805 letter to John Taylor. "I shall follow it, and a few more precedents will oppose the obstacle of habit to anyone after a while who shall endeavor to extend his term. Perhaps it may beget a disposition to establish it by an amendment of the Constitution."
In the same letter to the Legislature of Vermont where he warned of a presidential monarchy, Jefferson further explained why he refused to run for a third term.
"Believing that a representative government, responsible at short periods of election, is that which produces the greatest sum of happiness to mankind," Jefferson wrote, "I feel it a duty to do no act which shall essentially impair that principle; and I should unwillingly be the person who, disregarding the sound precedent set by an illustrious predecessor, should furnish the first example of prolongation beyond the second term of office."
WND attempted to contact Rep. Serrano about his reasons and argument for repeal of the 22nd Amendment, but phone calls to his communications director were not returned.
"Why Is Obama's Evil in Rick Warrens Pulpit?"
Although this is from 2006 it is very relevant now. Barack was sneaking into, and aggressively persuing, evangelical christians and their churches! His first major debate was at Saddleback Church with Rick Warren. He wanted to get to us first! Now that he realized that our God, the one true God, protects us from his plotting and scheming he has labeled us "A Threat." He says that we (conservative, pro-life, pro-traditional marraige, christians, and veterans) are the biggest threat to the U.S because we are extremists and we exclude people! Well, actually we don't exclude people, we try to exclude behaviors but none of us is perfect and we all struggle with sin! We are still called to love one another, so we are not excluding people but thier ungodly ways.
Posted: November 17, 20061:00 am Eastern
By Kevin McCullough© 2009
Rick Warren, the best selling author of "The Purpose Driven Life" and senior teaching pastor at Saddleback Church in California, has invited Sen. Barack Obama to speak to the congregation of the faithful on Dec. 1, 2006. In doing so, he has joined himself with one of the smoothest politicians of our times, and also one whose wickedness in worldview contradicts nearly every tenet of the Christian faith that Warren professes.
So the question is "why?"
Why would Warren marry the moral equivalency of his pulpit – a sacred place of honor in evangelical tradition – to the inhumane, sick and sinister evil that Obama has worked for as a legislator?
(Column continues below)
window.google_render_ad();
According to press reports, it is because of a mutual respect that each feels towards the other over the HIV/AIDS pandemic on the African continent. That rationale, however, is not only dishonest, but is not even logical given the two distinct positions that the men come to on the matter. Because of this supposed shared concern, Warren is ready to turn over the spiritual mantle to a man who represents the views of Satan at worst or progressive anti-God liberals at best in most of his public positions on the greatest moral tests of our time.
Warren's stand on the matter in this instance is what is in doubt – not Obama's!
Barack Obama has a long history of defying the intended morality of Scripture. As a state legislator, he actively worked to preserve availability of abortion in all nine months of pregnancy. He opposed parental notification. He opposed any and all bans on partial-birth abortion (an act that includes delivery of the baby up to the head, the crushing of the baby's brain, the suctioning of the brain matter, and then completed delivery of the child's deflated cranium). In his run for the U.S. Senate, Obama even asked his wife to pen a letter to Illinois voters that reassured them of his commitment to fighting for the right to butcher children in the womb.
Barack Obama has long supported the advance of the radical homosexual activist lobby in its pursuit to destroy traditional marriage. He supported the creation of "special rights" for people who engage in homosexuality for the sole purpose of putting them at the front of the line on issues of employment, housing and litigation. He has also solidly backed the advancement of all "hate crimes" legislation, which ultimately may be used to silence clergy who believe according to their own convictions that homosexual behavior is wrong and preach so from biblical texts. Obama has a perfect voting record against the defense of marriage.
Barack Obama advocates continued funding for Planned Parenthood clinics in our nation's inner cities, which are performing genocide against the populations of African Americans living there.
And most damnable of all, when a brave nurse named Jill Stanek brought about national awareness to a practice at a local hospital in suburban Chicago that allowed the starvation and neglect of newly born children who had survived abortion procedures – Obama opposed her. He opposed the right of those children to be given the chance to live and he advocated against a ban on such procedures – then known as "born alive abortions."
Even if they share a professed concern over the AIDS pandemic, what difference would Warren and Obama's union actually make?
Sen. Obama does not share with evangelicals a belief in moral absolutes. Right and wrong are terms of humor to Obama. All issues are shades of gray.
So how does Rick Warren believe their efforts can legitimately be joined? And what does he have to give up to do so?
By scriptural standards, Rick Warren is to be bound by the biblical text and its teaching on morality. Obama would pursue and has pursued mass distribution of condoms.
If you say to a society, as Uganda has, that the only way to be sure of not getting AIDS is through "abstinence until marriage," then they will be likely to believe you. (It's scientifically provable. And it explains Uganda's unique improvement on the African continent in the number of people contracting the virus.) On the other hand, if you say to a culture, as has happened in more than one African nation, "Try abstinence – but if you can't remain abstinent then use a condom," what do you think the likely outcome will be?
Warren's reasoning might be similar to other leaders of doctrinally weak seeker churches like Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois. Senior Pastor Bill Hybels first invited an unrepentant then-President Bill Clinton to attend his pastor's conference, and proceeded to pitch him one softball after the next in an interview before the gathered masses. Hybels' idea was to allow Clinton to "teach pastors" ideas about what "true leadership" was all about. (At what? Adultery? Lying under oath? Oral Sex?) Clinton was at least smart enough to be able to play the game a bit and profess certain vagaries about a "life of belief in God." Obama doesn't let such nonsense get in his way.
Barack Obama is likely to run for president in 2008, and speaking from the pulpit of one of America's most well-known evangelical churches is likely to be footage that could be used over and over in trying to dissuade Christians from thinking about moral issues that real Christians truly value.
It should also be noted that Rick Warren knows better. Both he and his wife, Kay, have appeared on my broadcast in days gone by. Through some of our combined efforts with World Vision, my radio listeners have raised literally millions of dollars towards the AIDS crisis in Africa. And the truth be told, evangelicals in North America contribute more monies toward the very issue Warren professes worry over than the whole of Barack Obama's liberal friends combined.
There is definitely something for Barack Obama to gain by appearing in Rick Warren's pulpit – the implied endorsement and blessing for the 2008 presidential race. There is definitely something for Rick Warren to gain in promoting Obama and giving him time behind the altar of God's word – power and access to a future heavyweight contender for the highest office in the land.
There is also something definitively risky for me in drawing attention to the matter, but because I am compelled to do what is right – and not what is expedient – I cannot refrain from asking the question.
My listeners feel the same way. They feel even more so that way when they are hung up on when dialing Warren's church at 949-609-8000 to express their concerns. (That was 949-609-8000.)
Whatever the forthcoming explanation is from Rick Warren, it will be impossible to counterbalance the rock solid truths about Obama and what he stands for.
And for the scripturally literate among us, Ephesians 5:11 says, "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them."
It may be too late to alter a stubborn heart or mind at Saddleback Church, but the effort should at least be made. So I am encouraging you to do what my listeners have done for the past several days – call Rick Warren and ask him why Barack Obama's evil worldview will be given the high honor of addressing the faithful. (949-609-8000 or info@saddleback.com)
Then gently remind him that it would be sin to let him do so!
By Kevin McCullough© 2009
Rick Warren, the best selling author of "The Purpose Driven Life" and senior teaching pastor at Saddleback Church in California, has invited Sen. Barack Obama to speak to the congregation of the faithful on Dec. 1, 2006. In doing so, he has joined himself with one of the smoothest politicians of our times, and also one whose wickedness in worldview contradicts nearly every tenet of the Christian faith that Warren professes.
So the question is "why?"
Why would Warren marry the moral equivalency of his pulpit – a sacred place of honor in evangelical tradition – to the inhumane, sick and sinister evil that Obama has worked for as a legislator?
(Column continues below)
window.google_render_ad();
According to press reports, it is because of a mutual respect that each feels towards the other over the HIV/AIDS pandemic on the African continent. That rationale, however, is not only dishonest, but is not even logical given the two distinct positions that the men come to on the matter. Because of this supposed shared concern, Warren is ready to turn over the spiritual mantle to a man who represents the views of Satan at worst or progressive anti-God liberals at best in most of his public positions on the greatest moral tests of our time.
Warren's stand on the matter in this instance is what is in doubt – not Obama's!
Barack Obama has a long history of defying the intended morality of Scripture. As a state legislator, he actively worked to preserve availability of abortion in all nine months of pregnancy. He opposed parental notification. He opposed any and all bans on partial-birth abortion (an act that includes delivery of the baby up to the head, the crushing of the baby's brain, the suctioning of the brain matter, and then completed delivery of the child's deflated cranium). In his run for the U.S. Senate, Obama even asked his wife to pen a letter to Illinois voters that reassured them of his commitment to fighting for the right to butcher children in the womb.
Barack Obama has long supported the advance of the radical homosexual activist lobby in its pursuit to destroy traditional marriage. He supported the creation of "special rights" for people who engage in homosexuality for the sole purpose of putting them at the front of the line on issues of employment, housing and litigation. He has also solidly backed the advancement of all "hate crimes" legislation, which ultimately may be used to silence clergy who believe according to their own convictions that homosexual behavior is wrong and preach so from biblical texts. Obama has a perfect voting record against the defense of marriage.
Barack Obama advocates continued funding for Planned Parenthood clinics in our nation's inner cities, which are performing genocide against the populations of African Americans living there.
And most damnable of all, when a brave nurse named Jill Stanek brought about national awareness to a practice at a local hospital in suburban Chicago that allowed the starvation and neglect of newly born children who had survived abortion procedures – Obama opposed her. He opposed the right of those children to be given the chance to live and he advocated against a ban on such procedures – then known as "born alive abortions."
Even if they share a professed concern over the AIDS pandemic, what difference would Warren and Obama's union actually make?
Sen. Obama does not share with evangelicals a belief in moral absolutes. Right and wrong are terms of humor to Obama. All issues are shades of gray.
So how does Rick Warren believe their efforts can legitimately be joined? And what does he have to give up to do so?
By scriptural standards, Rick Warren is to be bound by the biblical text and its teaching on morality. Obama would pursue and has pursued mass distribution of condoms.
If you say to a society, as Uganda has, that the only way to be sure of not getting AIDS is through "abstinence until marriage," then they will be likely to believe you. (It's scientifically provable. And it explains Uganda's unique improvement on the African continent in the number of people contracting the virus.) On the other hand, if you say to a culture, as has happened in more than one African nation, "Try abstinence – but if you can't remain abstinent then use a condom," what do you think the likely outcome will be?
Warren's reasoning might be similar to other leaders of doctrinally weak seeker churches like Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois. Senior Pastor Bill Hybels first invited an unrepentant then-President Bill Clinton to attend his pastor's conference, and proceeded to pitch him one softball after the next in an interview before the gathered masses. Hybels' idea was to allow Clinton to "teach pastors" ideas about what "true leadership" was all about. (At what? Adultery? Lying under oath? Oral Sex?) Clinton was at least smart enough to be able to play the game a bit and profess certain vagaries about a "life of belief in God." Obama doesn't let such nonsense get in his way.
Barack Obama is likely to run for president in 2008, and speaking from the pulpit of one of America's most well-known evangelical churches is likely to be footage that could be used over and over in trying to dissuade Christians from thinking about moral issues that real Christians truly value.
It should also be noted that Rick Warren knows better. Both he and his wife, Kay, have appeared on my broadcast in days gone by. Through some of our combined efforts with World Vision, my radio listeners have raised literally millions of dollars towards the AIDS crisis in Africa. And the truth be told, evangelicals in North America contribute more monies toward the very issue Warren professes worry over than the whole of Barack Obama's liberal friends combined.
There is definitely something for Barack Obama to gain by appearing in Rick Warren's pulpit – the implied endorsement and blessing for the 2008 presidential race. There is definitely something for Rick Warren to gain in promoting Obama and giving him time behind the altar of God's word – power and access to a future heavyweight contender for the highest office in the land.
There is also something definitively risky for me in drawing attention to the matter, but because I am compelled to do what is right – and not what is expedient – I cannot refrain from asking the question.
My listeners feel the same way. They feel even more so that way when they are hung up on when dialing Warren's church at 949-609-8000 to express their concerns. (That was 949-609-8000.)
Whatever the forthcoming explanation is from Rick Warren, it will be impossible to counterbalance the rock solid truths about Obama and what he stands for.
And for the scripturally literate among us, Ephesians 5:11 says, "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them."
It may be too late to alter a stubborn heart or mind at Saddleback Church, but the effort should at least be made. So I am encouraging you to do what my listeners have done for the past several days – call Rick Warren and ask him why Barack Obama's evil worldview will be given the high honor of addressing the faithful. (949-609-8000 or info@saddleback.com)
Then gently remind him that it would be sin to let him do so!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)