SEARCH VEGSOURCE:
Custom Search

 


Reply To This Post         Return to Posts Index           VegSource Home


From: Millie (pepper2-62.aeneas.net)
Subject:         Blindly accepting false information.....
Date: November 30, 2006 at 1:17 pm PST

Below is an article that I've recently seen posted elsewhere. In my opinion, this is the type of uninformed information that is passed throughout emails and message boards that have been accepted over the last few years as accurate. It has been very difficult over the last six-plus years to fight against misinformation - we've had to spend so much time researching and proving that info was false and before one is proven another shows up until we're under a pile of crap so deep that much information is just blindly accepted by some.

My question and/or point, I don't know which, is that if something doesn't sound quite right, why would anyone accept the information without further research? I've seen the following be blindly accepted but many sentences stand out to me as "come on, that can't be true," and yet I'm sick and tired of doing the research for others. Why shouldn't everyone take the time to search out a statement or claim that sounds off-kilter? My 'conspiracy-theorist' position of President makes me wonder if this type of tactic goes all the way back to the beginnings of PNAC or is it merely the work of 'overzealous minor worker-bees' as is usually blamed (for example: the Mission Accomplished banner). That 'overzealous worker-bee' has been very busy over the years has he/she not?

Anyway - I'm not -at the moment- going to investigate the following article because my point is that it just sounds SO out of whack that what I really want to focus on is just why someone would accept it blindly. I'm going to highlight in blue several sentences I would definitely fact-check before I would ever believe the claims. This is merely one of the latest in a mountain of examples.

Highlighted in blue are things I would never believe without fact-checking -- would you? In pink are my own comments before fact-checking. I am just flabbergasted at what is currently being called "information" and how it is misleading so many.

I posted here because the abortion issue is prevelant in this particular article.......

Why is Obama's Evil in Rick Warren's Pulpit?
By Kevin McCullough
Sunday, November 19, 2006

Rick Warren, the best selling author of The Purpose Driven Life and senior teaching pastor at Saddleback Church in California, has invited Barack Obama to speak to the congregation of the faithful on December 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 tenant 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? This statement in itself lets me know that the article is not unbiased nor fact-checked. Anyone 'inhumane, sick, and sinister' would not be able to stay a legislator, would he? Oh, wait, I forgot Foley -- never mind. And, it's the 'whistle-blower' who is evil. ~sigh~

According to press reports, it is because of a mutual respect that each feels towards the other over the AIDS/HIV pandemic on the African continent. That rationale however is not only dishonest, but 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. Why would anyone take something like this as truth????? I am a Christian *and* a liberal whether Karl Rove thinks it's possible or not.

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. In all nine months? I would never believe that without fact-checking. I know of no one who advocates abortion for birth control purposes 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.) 'Partial birth abortion' is not even the procedures medical name. It is a medical procedure performed on a woman who expected to have a live child. She has probably already decorated the nursery. It is NOT a birth control procedure. This lie has been perpetrated for way too long as a method of birth control. It isn't. 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. I'm sure that he had his wife write "butcher children in the womb. Anytime they reword a stance makes me ask why. Could it be because the actual opinion is not as bad as the reworded version? Probably. Again, I would fact-check this before believing it at face value.

Barack Obama has long supported the advance of the radical homosexual activist lobby in their pursuit to destroy traditional marriage. I have yet to hear from this 'homosexual activist lobby' and their intention to 'destroy marriage'. Most politicians I've heard publicly speak on the issue agrees that civil unions should be provided - I've heard GW say so himself on LKL. 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. Barack 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?

Barack Obama does not share a view with evangelicals in a belief of 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 numbers 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? In my opinion, this whole paragraph is lacking in knowledge; instead of coloring it all in blue for a fact-check, personally, I would simply roll my eyes over this claim.

Rick 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 Unrepentant to whom? It was something between Clinton, Hillary, and God. But, it is what the arguments always come back around to, isn't it? Jealousy. 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?)???? I'd rather be living under a Clinton economy right now, I'm sure. 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 non-sense 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 So, this author has the definition of 'read Christians'? Interesting in light of this article! LOL truly feel concern for.

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 towards the very issue Warren professes worry over than the whole of Barack Obama's liberal friends combined. I think Clinton's initiatives have certainly raised the bar quite a bit.

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 Barack 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 can not refrain from asking the question.

Reply To This Post         Return to Posts Index           VegSource Home


Follow Ups:


    


Post Reply

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:



See spam or
inappropriate posts?
Please let us know.
  


Want to see more videos? Subscribe to VegSource!

Every time we post a new video, we'll send you a notice by e-mail.

No spam ever and you can easily unsubscribe at anytime.

Enter your email address, your first name, and press Submit.


Your Email:
First Name:
Newsletter archive

Infomercial production direct marketing