Rick Warren Endorses ''Taking Out'' Iranian President Ahmadinejad

[DeSwiss]

WARREN ENDORSES HANNITY'S WARMONGERING

The Washington Monthly
Steve Benen 4:30 PM
December 4, 2008

Pastor Rick Warren has a reputation for being far more stable and grounded than religious right leaders and TV preachers like Pat Robertson, but it's worth remembering that he's not exactly a moderate.

Last night, on Fox News, Sean Hannity insisted that United States needs to "take out" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Warren said he agreed. Hannity asked, "Am I advocating something dark, evil or something righteous?" Warren responded, "Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped.... In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers."

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/12/04/warren-stopping-evil/">Matt Duss explained why Warren's comments are problematic on a variety of levels.

Does Warren really consider it part of his ministry to sanctify the inch-deep theologizing-cum-warmongering of thugs like Sean Hannity? If so, who else does Warren think Jesus would bomb?

I contacted Pastor Warren's office for clarification, specifically to find out where, exactly, the Bible says that "God puts government on earth to punish evildoers" like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They said they'd get back to me. I'll update if and when they do. I suspect Warren was referring to Romans 13, in which the Apostle Paul admonished Christians to submit to governing authorities (Hear that Hannity? Submit!), and also addressed the power of civil government to punish criminals. This has nothing to do, as far as I know, with invading foreign countries and killing their leaders, which is the context in which Warren is speaking.

In any case, if this were a conversation between an Iranian TV host and an ayatollah in which they discussed scriptural justifications for "taking out" high ranking members of the U.S. government, you'd probably see Sean Hannity running the clip on his show -- while slowly shaking his head in pious disapproval -- as evidence of what crazy extremists those Iranians are. As it is, they'll probably be running this on Iranian TV as evidence of what crazy extremists those Americans are.

Later, Warren's office called Duss back to say the pastor was, in fact, referring to Romans 13. When Duss noted the chapter and verse make no reference to killing foreign leaders, Warren's representative said she'd have to look into it. Something to keep in mind the next time Warren presents himself as the leader of a new breed of reasonable evangelical leaders.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_12/015925.php ">LINK

- The word "reasonable" (nor any other derivatives of the word 'reason'), and the word "evangelical" should never be used in the same sentence.....
==============================================================================
DeSwiss


http://www.atheisttoolbox.com/">The Atheist Toolbox




"Prayer is just a way of telling god that his divine plan for
you is flawed -- and shockingly stingy" ~ Betty Bowers

[sharp_stick]

1. Rick Warren

and the rest of this money stealing RW church loving cult can kiss my pale white ass. Fuck him and fuck anyone that gives him credibility or a voice.

[DeSwiss]

11. Got it.

Same here.

[saltpoint]

2. Warren is likely fearful that Franklin Graham is perceived as the greater

profile of a cynical, definitely unstable, and likely psychotic religious leader, and with these comments, he's letting the competition know that he can be as cynical, unstable and psychotic as anybody.

[blm]

4. No doubt.....and he SOOOO wants in on the $$ Rapture Leader$hip.

.

[saltpoint]

6. Yep. Ol' Rick wants to be first in the line for the Grand Cafeteria.

[DeSwiss]

14. I hadn't ever heard of him until....

- I knew he was nuts after that though....

[GodlessBiker]

3. It appears that Warren lives by the sword...

[DeSwiss]

15. No.

But he doesn't mind it if others do in the glorification of his god.

- And his ego. Of course.....

[rateyes]

16. Yep, and it was Jesus who said,

"Put your sword away, for those who live by the sword shall die by the sword."

[trotsky]

29. The very same Jesus who also said...

"I came not to bring peace but a sword." So he just picks different bible verses to live by.

[DeSwiss]

30. Indeed....

....and not only does he say he intends to set people against one another, then, once they've got a handle on things....



- For "some reason" people often miss those parts.....

[trotsky]

33. Oh, don't be silly.

That was just a parable. Even though Jesus was telling it, and the character who said those words represented him.

[davidinalameda]

41. go back and read Luke 19

Verse 27 doesn't really fit in with the rest of the chapter

anyway, Jesus doesn't really "reign over" anyone unless they are dead

if Jesus was going to tell his followers to go kill non-believers, it would be mentioned more often than this one time

[rateyes]

35. To set son against father, and daughter against mother and

daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. Jesus was basically saying to his disciples, whom he sent out to stand with the poor and the oppressed, and to stand against the oppressors that when you stand against the oppressors, you will experience opposition, even from your own household. Oppressors rarely want to cede their position of dominance over those they oppress.

But, I doubt Rev. Warren even understands that. After all, he is one of the oppressors of the world.

[trotsky]

36. Yup, everyone can spin pretty much anything they want out of the bible.

And just about all of it is equally justified. After all, when something is written, rewritten, translated, adapted, transcribed, re-translated, edited, re-translated, and edited again by hundreds of people over thousands of years, well, yeah, there's going to be some mixed messages. I've seen liberal believers right here in this forum just as insistent there is ONE and ONLY ONE interpretation of the bible as the most rabid right-wing fundie. Weird stuff.

[rateyes]

37. I hear that. It's hard for some Christians, right or left, to come to the realization

that the Bible is not infallible. It does contradict itself. That said, I do think there is a lot of truth that can be gleaned from the Bible--as well as the Quran, and other so-called "sacred" writings. Truth is truth regardless of the source. As a believer in a higher-power, I would say all truth is God's (or perhaps, the gods') truth, regardless of the source. Falsehood, though, abounds in all human writings, including the Bible.

Searching for truth makes life interesting, IMO. Too much dogma in the world. Leads to evil. Funny how religion, which is supposed to make life better is often the root of evil acts.

[BonnieJW]

5. How Christian of him.

I'm sure that's what Jesus did -- contemplated which people to "take out."

[DeSwiss]

17. Yeah I know what you mean.

- Didn't he cover this in that "Sermon on the Mount" thing??? The mean the cable version.

[predfan]

7. There's your danger in the constant blending of religion and politics we've endured over the

last few years; idiots like Warren representing themselves as children of God..........

[DeSwiss]

18. Actually I think Rick...

...sees himself a little higher up the food chain that a mere "child of god."

[yellowcanine]

8. Trying to speed up the Apocolypse time line, Rick? Another blood thirsty evangelical.

Why are some of the followers of the Prince of Peace such warmongers?

[DeSwiss]

19. Who is this "Prince of Peace" of whom you speak???

- He should start a religion!!!

[yellowcanine]

26. He would be thrown out of a lot of "Christian" churches today, that's for sure.

For being "un 'murican". Sucker doesn't even speak English.

[DeSwiss]

31. Well, it depends....

- upon which Jesus shows up....

[CoffeeCat]

9. Ahhhhhh....how sweet.

An unprovoked, purpose-driven assassination in cold blood.

How lovely.

WWJMOOSSAI? (Who would Jesus murder out of sheer stupidity and ignorance?)

:eyes:

[DeSwiss]

20. WWJMOOSSAI? (Who would Jesus murder out of sheer stupidity and ignorance?)

LOVE IT!!!

- Although, it'll be hard to put on a button.....

[foxfeet]

10. A whole new meaning to a "Purpose-Driven Life."

[DeSwiss]

21. When the purpose is to try and kill reason and truth....

...having religion at one's back is the way we've always done it.

[moggie]

12. The bible as an authority on good government?

I think anyone citing the bible as advice on how government should be conducted ought first to explain why it doesn't advocate democracy.

[DeSwiss]

22. And as luck would have it.....

...I have the perfect cliche' button for this situation!

[rateyes]

13. Uh, Mr. Warren, the Bible also says,

do not return evil for evil, but overcome evil with good. "Is your enemy hungry? Then, you feed him." Those were Jesus' words.

In fact, those words, unlike the ones you quoted are attributed to Jesus. I guess you are saying that Jesus would assassinate a world leader. And, those verses you quoted about government, applied to ancient Rome---Paul was telling those subject to Rome (not a free people) to submit themselves to Rome's authority. That means, he would be telling the people of Iran to submit themselves to Iranian authority.

Your mistreatment of the biblical text tells me a lot about you.

You, sir, are one lousy theologian, and not much of a Christian.

[DeSwiss]

23. Yeah but....

...he was on Hannity, remember?

Hannity's viewers certainly don't know about theologians. Nor Christianity for that matter.

- But then, only a handful do....

[yellowcanine]

27. "Great shot of Insanity! Love the single eyebrow.

[T Wolf]

24. And I endorse taking out fundie whack-jobs. And I ain't talking dinner and a movie.

[DeSwiss]

25. Usually....

...if we let them keep flapping their soup-coolers, they generally "take-out" themselves.

[charlie]

28. The Peace Award he gave Dubya "was not about peace"

He said that in the same interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaMhnOOuirk
(51 second excerpt)

I'm still mightily annoyed that he when snapped his fingers the presidential candidates came running.

[DeSwiss]

32. Annoyed?

- I'm royally pissed. Hell, even http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmU0ZmFlY2M2NjFkMDNhZTNjYjE3YjMxODUyYWE3OTM=">Kathleen Parker called the cadidate's appearances a "religious test." The "oogedy-boogedy" factor:

As long as the religious right is seen as controlling the Republican party, the GOP will continue to lose some percentage of voters, and that percentage likely will increase over time as younger voters shift away from traditional to more progressive values. The cause is not helped when someone of the stature of Rick Warren interviews the leading presidential candidates in his church, questioning them about their faith. If that’s not a religious test, I don’t know what is.

The glue that binds the GOP’s religious right — social issues, especially abortion — is not insignificant and doesn’t deserve to be dismissed. But nor should those issues be tied to scripture. Some religious conservatives understand this, but the memo apparently isn’t reaching all the pews. They might take a cue from Nat Hentoff, a self-described Jewish-atheist, who has written as eloquently as anyone about the “indivisibility of life” and the slippery slope down which abortion leads. He uses logic and reason to argue that being pro-life, rather than resolving the religious question of ensoulment, is really a necessary barrier against selective killing, such as when someone else decides it’s your time to die.

Hentoff’s arguments, and others on related issues, ultimately may fail. But at least they will fail for reasons other than that "oogedy-boogedy" got in the way.

I absolutely hate it when I have to agree with Repukes.

[charlie]

34. Okay, I remember that

I remember nodding my head vigorously when reading it. Do I still agree? Lemme check... yep, the Repub was clearly righteous. Cripes, I don't know who's what or what's where anymore.

[elshiva]

38. PURPOSE DRIVEN LIE

Rick Warren is also a homophobe who is thanking gawd for Prop 8. :puke:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

39. Rick Warren is a scumbag

And what was the reason again that Obama agreed to participate in the Saddleback Forum?

[davidinalameda]

40. people like Rick Warren make me want to bang my head against the wall

I don't remember Jesus saying anything about killing people you don't like

the theology of these people never fails to amaze me-they twist the Bible into a book of hate

no wonder non-believers tend to paint all Christians as bigots

[DeSwiss]

42. Lest we forget.....

...what an asshole Rick Warren truly is. Apparently "someone" didn't vet the Warren invocation decision well enough.

[elshiva]

43. That is a shame. Warren deserves absolute obscurity, but

he keeps getting thrown into the spotlight. He is a third rate hack and a homophobe. He needs to step down as pastor and just go to an island somewhere. :(

[DeSwiss]

45. When one considers the deft, applomb and efficiency....

...with which the Obama campaign just dazzled us, I cannot believe that this decision wasn't deliberate, if not also a political gem. Though a blatantly solicitous act, Obama knows in the end that he can't bow to the forces who stand against Choice, nor Gays without dividing the party further. And his appointments of Pro-choice and pro-gay's will see to it that no policy decision of the religious-right's social agenda will get anywhere. I believe Obama knows this. Whether it has any long-term benefits, remains to be seen. He has already indicated that he intends to http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/obama.executive.orders/">repeal most of Bush's Executive Orders related to reproductive issues.

And yet I agree with you totally. He's a crass showman, and just another peddler of hocus-pocus mythology.

The RR's on the other hand, no doubt see this as an opportunity to try and marginalize the Pro-choice and Pro-gay factions to the outer edges of the Dem party -- from the inside. Warren's appeal seems to be with the younger Evangelicals. A group, whom according to Barna Group polls, are more into the saving of people through international hunger and education programs, instead of saving people from themselves and their "sin of homosexuality and abortion." And for that matter -- the sin of sex of any kind outside of a man and a woman -- and only when securely within the bonds of matrimony -- and preferably only in the missionary position. With your eyes closed. ;)

But why waste a perfectly good island on the likes of Rick? I say we put him into a rocket, along with all of our other nuclear and toxic waste and send it toward the sun.

- I'm only thinking of the environment!

[elshiva]

48. I agree with DeSwiss, but I said the thing about the

island because I did not want to sink to his level. I don't want to "take him out." I just want him out of his current job and in obscurity.

[John Gauger]

44. I'm astounded that people don't think that our foreign should improve the situation.

Any idiot can predict that the murder of a foreign leader will have only negative repercussions. All morality aside, it's just a dumb idea. It would only make things worse. Why doesn't anybody ever think about that?

This is a perfect illustration as to why we should not use religious doctrine to inform policy.

[DeSwiss]

46. What Warren suggests....

...is in reality little more than what religionists have always done, or called for being done, and fomented action toward -- from time immemorial.

The "holy sanctioning" from such modern-day saints, of the use of political and military force to achieve some godly end, is one of many upon a long continuum. With it, they have justified killing, torturing and enslavement, and forced religious conversion. Christian religious dogma in particular, with its natural tendency toward separation and exclusionary practices against all non-adherents into groups of "the other," has always been its stock-in-trade.

And you're right: "This is a perfect illustration as to why we should not use religious doctrine to inform policy." And yet those who profess no belief in any god, are the last ones that Americans would vote for to make that policy.

- "The last shall be first," indeed....

[John Gauger]

47. What really asound me is that

even people of other religions seem to find no problem with the idea of religion informing policy. It's just the wrong religion, that's all.