Posted under Christianity & Culture & Media & Obama & Religion
I am always amazed at the brazen stupidity shown by those on the Left. Of all the people to demonize, they’ve now picked evangelical pastor Rick Warren. The controversy concerns the fact that President-elect Obama has picked him to give the invocation at the inaugeration in January. This, of course, has enraged the homosexual lobby and they’re not too happy with their “messiah” right now. Like a bunch of spoiled brats, they’re throwing a fit because they didn’t get their way on everything.
But seriously, Rick Warren? I’ve been watching the looney Left in the MSM react to this, particularly Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. It’s really amusing to see them flip out over this, comparing Warren to the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. That’s how out of touch these people really are. To be sure, I’ve certainly had many disagreements with Warren myself, but it’s beyond ridiculous to say he’s anything like Falwell.
Honestly, I hope the Left continues to bash Warren and voice their self-righteous outrage. It only shows the rest of the country how fanatical they really are. The homosexual lobby certainly isn’t being helped when obnoxious ideologues like Olbermann are lecturing Americans about how we need to foster “tolerance” by being intolerant of certain religious beliefs. And that’s what this is really about at the end of the day. This is bigger than Warren. This is about the Left’s systematic strategy to demonize conservative Christians and drive us out of society.
Obama said before and after the election that he wants to help bring America together. He says he wants to reach out to everyone and represent even those who didn’t support him. This certainly sounds like political posturing, but it seems like he’s at least trying to keep this promise. It also shows that the radical homosexual lobby won’t have quite the influence they thought they would. Obama is definitely a Leftist, but he’s also a realist. He knows that his decision won’t cause the homosexuals to abandon the Democratic Party in droves. They’ll get over it and he’ll probably make up for it by signing pro-homosexual legislation into law.
For now, I’m going to enjoy this latest controversy while it lasts. Let the homosexual lobby show everyone who they truly are: a fanatical group of self-righteous statists who want to use the power of civil government to impose their morality through unconstitutional Federal legislation and programs. If they truly want equity (and they don’t), then they would take the conservative/libertarian approach of getting civil government out of the marriage business entirely. Of course they don’t want that because it doesn’t serve their interests of using government for social engineering purposes.
roho on 19 Dec 2008 at 4:56 pm #
Good Points!
James on 19 Dec 2008 at 8:36 pm #
I was a fan of Olbermann’s rants about Bush, but you are certainly right about how sanctimonious and obnoxious he truly is, and, I think he has become even more so since Obama’s election. He and Maddow’s apoplectic diatribes about Warren really demonstrate the totalitarian impluse of these New Left types; preaching ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ while advocating the most intolerant policies possible. I think it demonstrates just what the Left means when they say ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity.’ They have very, very constricted definitions of these words. ‘Tolerance’ means acceptance of their ideology and ‘diversity’ only means race, gender and sexual orientation count as measures of diversity and these must be uniform throughout the country. If there is some area of the country that is overwhelmingly white, or Christian or conservative then they are therefore not diverse and must be made to be like those areas which are more left-leaning and multicultural. In reality, the way the Left applies ‘diversity’ it is simply an Orwelian way of enforcing uniformity, a uniformity to their ideology. True dissent or differences in ways of thinking or lifestyle (i.e. conservative and Christian) are automatically suspect.
Filmer on 20 Dec 2008 at 1:33 am #
Is Maddow a lesbian?
RedPhillips on 20 Dec 2008 at 2:04 am #
A heated discussion of Warren is going on here.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=824
The harsh anti-evangelicalism/protestantism at Chronicles and other paleo sites is getting old. It would be comical if it wasn’t so sad seeing Catholics condemning Protestants for theological error. Please get sola fide right, and then we’ll talk.
Kevin Thompson on 20 Dec 2008 at 11:07 am #
I think it is interesting that in most conservative churches and circles, Rick Warren is looked down upon. Here is a guy who is trying to strattle the fence by being the least offensive Chirstian out there, yet still trying to be a Christian. It always seemed to me that his whole purpose-driven, seeker-sensative appraoch to the church is just another way of trying to serve two masters – God and man. But, know Pastor Warren is finding out just how hostile this worlds is even to nominal or minimal Christianity. Interesting…
Jan Rogozinski on 20 Dec 2008 at 1:50 pm #
As I leave this site, you’ve got it exactly and stupidly back wards.
Warren is divisive. because of his sick psyche, he personally hates gay persons. All gay persons, including little old ladies who have been married for 60 years.
Thus he wants to deny all gay persons their constitutional rights. Personally I don’t care whether they call it “marriage” or not, just as long as same sex unions have all the rights as opposite sex marriage.
Warren is preaching hate simply to make money. If he had any education at all, he would know that there is no mention of homosexuality anywhere in the Greek original of the New Testament. (there is in some bad and inaccurate translation.) But Jesus should did blast divorce.
So why does Warren fag-bash the folk not in his church and never confront the many mortal sins of those in front of him? simple. They wouldn’t put money in the collection basket If he spoke honestly to those in his congregation instead of constantly telling them “even though you whore around, are on your fourth wife, steal from your employees and customers, and praise Bush for torturing innocent folk, you are nevertheless perfect sinless saints simply because you’re heterosexual.”
Well, God surely will damn him for being a fake=pastor who is condemning his sinful congregation to hell.
roho on 20 Dec 2008 at 2:32 pm #
Jan…….”Surely ye jest”?
Filmer on 20 Dec 2008 at 3:27 pm #
Jan has a lot of good commentary, but he has a serious blind spot here. Homosexuality is clearly and unequivocally condemned in the Bible, Old and New Testament. To argue otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
David Allyn on 20 Dec 2008 at 3:30 pm #
Rick Warren is slick – he has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations for many years.
roho on 20 Dec 2008 at 6:00 pm #
Thank’s David!……It is confirmed that he is a CFR member. Hre is another issue that I’m uncomfortable with in the case of “Hybred Political Ministers.”
“Secret Fema Plan To Use Pastors As Pacifiers In Preparation For Martial Law”.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/240506femaplan.htm
Harold Crews on 21 Dec 2008 at 12:27 am #
The Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality? I guess Christians have been making that up for the last two thousand years and Jew’s before them. If Christ would allow his Church to go into apostasy than the second Adam could do no better by his bride than the first Adam. There would be little point to following Him if that were the case. Homosexuals rely more than they care to admit on Christian charity. They curse the tree while sitting in its shade and relishing its fruit.
If this were soley about obtaining the legal rights, privileges or perogatives that married men and women have there would be little need for “homosexual marriage” or “civil unions” at all. A competent person of age can appoint anyone who is also competent and of age as power of attorney and health care power of attorney; hold any type of property jointly with right of survivorship; and name anyone as sole or partial heir and as personal representative. All at the trouble of an afternoon spent with an attorney and at the cost of about $1000.
Weaver on 21 Dec 2008 at 2:30 am #
Mr. Rogozinski,
you’re right that it is hypocritical to condemn sodomy while not condemning sex out of marriage and other sins. The Old Testament certainly condemns sodomy. Are we not to follow this?
There might be some legal issues I might agree with you on, e.g. hospital visitation rights, though I don’t approve of any of this civil union stuff. That said, I suspect America is today as corrupt and chaotic as any in history, and civil unions aren’t a major issue I think anymore – there are so many huge issues of our day. I suspect people just want to feel they’re doing “right” and like you say have focused on homos (and I would add abortion) when, imo, there are far larger issues, the very survival of the American people for instance, at stake. Ending abortion and banning sodomy and adultery would seem the final capstone of a healthy society – they can’t be achieved legally without a foundation. It’s like trying to bake bread without grain, for a bad analogy…
Harold Crews,
men attracted to men is fine. Sodomy is condemned. Am I mistaken?
Stonewall on 21 Dec 2008 at 5:25 am #
Someone at the Reformation21 blog posted some commentary about this:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2008/12/rick-warren-and-the-left.php
And contrary to what was said above by Jan, homosexuality is indeed sinful as both the OT and the NT signify. 1 Corinthians and Timothy may both use “technical words,” but the fact remains, these “technical words” are derived from the Septuagint found in Leviticus 18:22:
“meta arsenos koiten gynaikos”
or:
“whoever lies with a man as with a woman”
The word “arsenokoites” is used by Paul, a compound word formed by the two Greek meanings “man” and “lie,” echoing the Septuagint in Leviticus 20:13 that Paul should be very fluent in. Certainly Paul is reflecting the moral code in from the OT, and not simply referring to “man and boy love associations” or “homosexual prostitution.”
Harold Crews on 21 Dec 2008 at 2:07 pm #
Weaver, there is a distinction between action and behaviour. Homosexual behaviour is inately disorder and is a mortal sin. A homosexual orientation or attraction is a heavy cross to bear but it can be overcome either by becoming heterosexual or embracing celibacy. Afterall a propensity to alcoholism does not justify alcoholism or turn it into self fulfillment. But also keep in mind the Lord’s admonition that lusting in your heart is itself sinful. The same would apply to homosexuals.
I don’t think many here would claim that homosexuality is the only sin against purity and chastity.
Weaver on 21 Dec 2008 at 5:50 pm #
Mr. Crews,
well said. I meant as you say, but wasn’t as clear.
—
Y’know it’s odd interacting with people who view sex as a recreation. Heh, they view more conservative types as relics and curiosities, and even as alien elements they aren’t sure how to respond to.
It’s partly like being around an alcoholic or druggie: they want you to share in their addiction – they’re not comfortable around conservatives. Even for those who reject Christ, abortion and broken families are undoubtedly disturbing, and they’re the inevitable result of sex out of wedlock.
roho on 21 Dec 2008 at 5:51 pm #
Paul and the other Opostles often spoke in terms of “Perverts” and “Perversion”. A brief study in the “Babalonian Talmud”. The conflicts between Pharisees and Saduces still existed, but soon the Saducees would die out. The “Oral Law” or Talmud was already the Supreme “Final Word”, within the Sanhedren. (And still is today in the world of Jewry.)
For easy reading one can google “Talmud Unmasked Part One” or another good source is: “The Jewish Religion: It’s Influence Today” by Elizabeth Dilling.
http://www.come-and-here.com/dilling/index.html
Many, many, things become more clear after a study of the “Talmud”.
Harold Crews on 22 Dec 2008 at 3:21 am #
It is ironic that those who are so focused on sex are the very ones who have such a low view of it. Instead of seeing sex as something profound and reserved only between a husband and wife for the purpose of greater physical and emotional intimacy and for having children; it is for them mundane and casual. It ceases to bring intimacy and its fruitfulness is frustrated. When the other is treated as only a means of sexual selfish gratification then sex becomes a barrier to intimacy. When you change the nature of a thing you destroy it.
Andrew T. on 22 Dec 2008 at 7:21 pm #
Harold,
Wow. I couldn’t possibly have said it better myself.
Harold Crews on 22 Dec 2008 at 11:31 pm #
Thanks Andrew. High praise in deed.
Weaver on 23 Dec 2008 at 3:03 pm #
Andrew and Mr. Crews,
do take a look at this PBS video: The Merchants of Cool.
Click on “Watch The Full Program Online”.
—
That’s what the youth of today, or rather of my day (old video), have to struggle against.
Weaver on 23 Dec 2008 at 3:03 pm #
And similarly, that’s how to win hearts and minds… When in doubt, look to those who are successful, and MTV has been successful.
RonL on 29 Apr 2009 at 4:00 am #
Roho,
How are you still posting? I thought I ate you for passover.
You mean I didn’t? Must be that you are posting from a blood libel site.
Then again, maybe I just made you up to discredit antisemitic stupidity