RICK WARREN - A Big Strike One for OBAMA

Dudester

Registered
What is Barack Obama thinking inviting one of these IMHO phony charlatans (who claims to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ but seem to all mainly be obsessed with Abortion and Homosexuals) to be part of the Inauguration Program on 01/20/09 ? The news media is making it sound like this has greatly upset ONLY the Gay Community (which is true - they feel totally betrayed, I don't blame them at all) but it goes way beyond just that. My friends (those that are upset about this that I have spoken to so far) and I happen to be hetrosexual so it's not just that we're simpatico with the gay community (which of course we are) but we also don't want a probable bigot to mess up a possibly beautiful day plus we don't fell that all these phony "TV and TV Type" preachers have ANY PLACE at all in American Politics - when did they become accepted as part of the US Government and aren't they Tax Exempt to stay Apolitical ?

Be it Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, or the Crystal Cathedral guy. In many people's opinion, including mine, these "Religious Fundamentalist" groups are much more of a fascist movement than a true religion that's all about being a force of good on this planet. Rick Warren talks about giving 90% of his earnings away. Well, that's all relative. If he makes 10 million a year (very possible from all of his books that have been best sellers. Very possible he's making much more.... smart publicity move though) he's still living on 1 Million a year. His "church" can own the Private Jets, Helicopters, Mansions, and Limos that he enjoys and uses so 1 million can go a long way, especially when you're "Tax Free" as all "churches" are. When he goes to Africa to take care of the poor folks he cares so much about does he stay in little modest 3 star hotels or does he somehow "need" the largest suite in the most expensive 5 Star in town ?

If he is so interested in helping the poor why are all 4 of his "Church" properties located in upscale neighborhoods? All blond haired, blue eyed cities in "White Flight from Los Angeles County" Orange County, Ca. - (Lake Forest, Irvine, Corona, San Clemente - all upscale, basically white only cities). Jesus was about helping the poor, hard to help the poor when you pick upper middle class and rich (San Clemente is beach front) neighborhoods to set up your churches. Why not South Central LA (Gang Land) - this is what Jesus would do....

Ricks latest project is a casual restaurant/deli/substitute for STARBUCKS (as Rick suggests on his own YouTube promo for his new restaurant) - "The Refinery" (see menu on website - http://www.saddlebackchurch.com) - he's opened up on his Saddleback Church campus which should bring in a little extra cash - (I think his 10% just went WAY UP). As Bono, lead singer for U2 said long ago, "The God I believe in isn't short of cash Mister". Good point.... would Jesus own a Pizza-Hut ?

One last thing Obama should have thought of. Bob Jones University in South Carolina (cut from the same cloth in thinking/beliefs as the Rick Warren places - minus the Hawaiian Shirts Rick wears) outlawed inter racial dating until the year 2000 (didn't know Jesus was against this practice). Had Barack's Mother gone to this school and followed the rules there would be no Barack Obama on this planet today - giving support and publicity to someone who is dead wrong and seems to miss the whole point of what Jesus was preaching about is not a wise move IMO (Almost forgot, I believe Rick Warren has called for the assassination of the Leader of Iran for his negative comments on Israel. Thought murder was a major sin but maybe Rick knows things I don't understand)

Maybe it was too much to believe this guy - Obama - could pull it off. Gays and Liberal/Moderate Democrats supported, financially contributed to, and spoke to friends about voting for Obama while Rick Warren's group went and voted for John McCain's team probably close to something like 90% so whom does Barack reward? Yeah, I don't get it, BIG MISTAKE and shows a big lapse in judgement. IMO, if you are leaving BsAs to come back to a "New America" I would stay put and see how this guy Governs. As The Who once sorta said - "Meet the New (Boss) American Government, same as the Old (Boss) American Government". How about keeping these Pushy, our way or no way "Religions" out of the USA Government now and forever. Isn't that one of the reasons the USA was formed? I thought it was..... Dudester

RICK EXPLAINS SEXUALITY AND SIN TO ANN CURRY (check out her eyes - she's in some level of shock it seems)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2ZwhdgiBgc

ANN CURRY TALKS ABOUT HER INTERVIEW WITH WARREN ON MSNBC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJoJcJhH4Yw
 

RWS

Registered
There are errors in this posting. As a lawyer and historian, I'll clarify three.

Dudester said:
. . . . we don't fell that all these phony "TV and TV Type" preachers have ANY PLACE at all in American Politics - when did they become accepted as part of the US Government and aren't they Tax Exempt to stay Apolitical ?
To maintain exemption from federal taxation of income, a religious body must not engage in endorsement of partisan candidates. Holding specific moral positions or principles has nothing to do with partisanship prohibited to tax-exempt institutions (consider, for example, the well-known opposition of the Roman church to abortion or of most traditional Quaker denominations to war).

. . . . Rick Warren talks about giving 90% of his earnings away. . . . If he makes 10 million a year . . . he's still living on 1 Million a year. . . . and . . . 1 million can go a long way, especially when you're "Tax Free" as all "churches" are. . . .
Recognized churches are not taxed, but their clergy are (they generally are exempt from mandatory contributions to -- and do not receive benefits from -- Social Security, together with a very few other categories of workers).

. . . . How about keeping these Pushy, our way or no way "Religions" out of the USA Government now and forever. Isn't that one of the reasons the USA was formed? . . . .
No. The federal constitution was amended to prohibit federal establishment of any particular denomination; it had nothing to do with establishment of religion by individual states (the Congregational church remained the established church of Massachusetts, for example, until shortly before the Civil War), and its drafters and ratifiers certainly did not intend that religiously-influenced political discussion would cease.

In short, then, you and I and many others may be irritated by what we may consider to be distortion of religious principles in public discussion, but neither historically nor legally is there any ground to limit such discussion much beyond the prohibition of explicit endorsement of partisan candidates. And as for Mr. Obama's choice of preacher: it mightn't have been ideal, but the choice is entirely the president elect's; I assume Mr. Obama made it to emphasize that he wishes to form a government of national unity (good luck in that impossible endeavor) rather than to endorse any particular stance regarding homosexual marriage (which, after all, is a matter reserved to the states). If complaints are loud enough, though, I'm sure he could change his mind.
 

Dudester

Registered
Good points RWS and I'm sure legally you have it down 100%.... but, let me go to my emotional side for a moment. Talk is cheap (and these guys talk A LOT, their actions seem much different almost all of the time) and I've had it with all of these Charlatans. 1 out of 10 are sincere and the other 9 are Jim and Tammy Baker or whoever....

Let Rick show us every aspect of his lifestyle (Forms and class of all transportation, Size and style of his house/homes, what level he lives on when traveling overseas, etc) and we'll all decide if he's living like a rich man or modest man of God..... If he's got nothing to hide he should pull back the curtains and let us check it all out....... BTW, IMHO Obama should focus on fixing the downward spiraling economy and save the fantasy attempt at peace, love, and understanding for all for much later on.......I'm NEVER going to agree with Pat Robertson so why waste time....
 

sergio

Registered
RWS you state : "the Congregational church remained the established church of Massachusetts, for example, until shortly before the Civil War". What do you mean by "the established church"? The 1st amendment specifically prohibits the establishment of any specific religion. How could the state of Massachusetts have recognized a specific denomination as the established church of the state? If my knowledge of American history is in error on this point, I stand corrected however your statement sounds very strange to me.
 

jpm2004

Registered
As an Obama supporter, I'll admit to being thoroughly perplexed by his choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration. I wouldn't have cared if Obama had picked someone whose social views were far to the right of the "average" American, the average Obama supporter, or myself. But I do care that he picked someone who is such a media whore and who promotes such a smug, uncritical, self-satisfied version of Christianity. The only thing that I can think of (and this has been suggested in several places in the media) is that Obama is actually co-opting Warren and taking away some of his power in conservative circles by this association with Obama. There has, apparently, been some chatter on social conservative sites about how shocked some people are that Warren would be "blessing" the presidency of a baby-killing, gay-loving Muslim terrorist. So Obama may be trying to find some way to stop Warren from gaining any more of a following in Christian conservative circles--it's better for him if they don't have a united front or clear leadership. Or this could just be a really bad decision on Obama's part.

I will say that I'm more depressed by some of Obama's picks for the cabinet than I am that he picked Warren to give the invocation. Warren isn't going to be consulted on policy, he's just a symbol, if an obnoxious one. I think influencing policy, rather than symbolism, should be the real goal of those of us who want a more progressive future for the United States
 

RWS

Registered
sergio said:
RWS you state : "the Congregational church remained the established church of Massachusetts, for example, until shortly before the Civil War". What do you mean by "the established church"? The 1st amendment specifically prohibits the establishment of any specific religion. How could the state of Massachusetts have recognized a specific denomination as the established church of the state? If my knowledge of American history is in error on this point, I stand corrected however your statement sounds very strange to me.
No, Sergio, the First Amendment to the federal Constitution prohibits federal establishment of religion (that is, governmental support and preference one religion or denomination above others). It does not bind the States (although post-Civil War holdings of the federal Supreme Court have increasingly moved toward binding States, too):

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . ."

(My emphases.) Remember that the federal government is the creature of the States, and that the States retain sovereignty (since 1865, of course, really only in name: as I've said in teaching Constitutional law, the indissolubility of the Union and the sovereignty of the States are the only two Constitutional issues decided by force of arms: the first in the affirmative, the second in the negative).
 

RWS

Registered
jpm2004 said:
. . . . There has, apparently, been some chatter on social conservative sites about how shocked some people are that Warren would be "blessing" the presidency of a baby-killing, gay-loving Muslim terrorist.
Really odd. Have you actually read any such statements, or simply references or supposed quotations from them?

. . . . I will say that I'm more depressed by some of Obama's picks for the cabinet than I am that he picked Warren to give the invocation. . . .
Amen to that! And not just nominations to his cabinet. But aren't those reasons for living in Bs.As. instead of the U.S.?
 

sergio

Registered
RWS, If you are a professor of constitutional law you must know what you are talking about. I did not think that a state could impose a law that is in contradiction to the federal constitution, i.e. if Congress is prohibited from establishing an official religion, how can a state establish one? Could you cite some source to support your statement that Massachusetts established the Congregational Church as the official religion of the state? I am not challenging you but would like to have this information for myself if it is accurate. I am very surprised.
 

RWS

Registered
Sergio, you doubtless have the same resources available as I have. I don't put much confidence in Wikipedia, but its article on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts may tell you that the Congregational church was established there 'til (if I remember correctly) 1848, or the article on Connecticut, that the same denomination was the established church of that state until 1818 (again, if I remember correctly), and so forth. If you are near a good law library, you can also check a well-annotated edition of state statutes or a good collection of legislative histories. Or simply talk with a knowledgeable (decently educated) professor of American history: this may not be popular knowledge, but it certainly isn't hidden.

Again, you could read both the First and Tenth Amendments and consider them conjointly. You'll see that no State that retained an establishment of religion after enactment of the Bill of Rights was in violation of federal law (and, again, as the antebellum States were sovereign, the federal government would not have presumed to have entered into the internal affairs of any).
 
Top