Evangelical pastor Rick Warren sent a message on Twitter today that is resonating with pro-life advocates opposed to the new Obama mandate forcing religious employers to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs.
I thought this was great. Those of us from many different faiths can come together in our commitment to religious freedom.
But---- it took about a minute from sedonaman to start criticizing Rick Warren. Sedonaman’s posts went way past the mandate. Before long the whole thread took on a different tone.
Rick Warren has been repeatedly ridiculed throughout the thread. Guess we aren’t celebrating the fact that non-Catholics are uniting with Catholics to oppose the mandate, after all. . . . .
His participation in the proceedings strongly conveys a message of support, more than Notre Dame giving øbama a platform implies support for his abortion position. If he didn’t want people to be confused, the reverend should have declined, unless he did support him, in which case the correct conclusion could be drawn.
Kind of like voting for him?
Calgar,
I don’t understand what you are trying to say. The article lists a number of Christian leaders speaking out against the mandate.
What issue do you have with rick Warren?
Anna
But they didn’t speak at øbama’s inauguration.
So, Rick Warren’s efforts, now, don’t count?
Anna
Look, a big deal is made out of a politician who flip-flops. Similarly, Warren’s efforts are a lot less credible than they would have been had he not created the impression of supporting øbama in the first place, which is my whole point. This is not to say his comment is without merit.
What did the voter hope for? Like “Free to choose” [Choose what?], “Hope and change” were left open-ended [Hope for what? Change what?] so the voter could fill in his own desires. But øbama made one thing crystal clear in his campaign: he said he was going to “fundamentally change the way this country works.” Anyone with an IQ above room temperature [to borrow a quote] should have been able to figure out that to “fundamentally change the way the country works” would require scrapping the fundamental [founding] documents, i.e., the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence … and starting over from scratch, which is what he is doing. In the thread, “Guarantee free exercise of religion; Obama says no way,” poster Pfaffenhoffen wrote in post #37, “After a brilliant demagogue speech, an old lady, friend of mine, came and said: “Oh! He spoke so well!” And I asked: “What did he say!?]" And the respectably old lady replied: “Son! I do not know! But he spoke so well!”
So there you have it.
Then you have to address the question of whether or not øbama is even capable of doing [much less wants] what the voter “hoped” for. Given his prior non-record, answering that question is a no-brainer.
After nearly 3 years and 3,476 posts, I am well aware that this is a Catholic Forum; and I appreciate the fact that CAF allows non-Catholics to discuss issues here.
Iiloveangels, since you have declared this thread to be a
Catholic discussion; I will leave you to it.
Peace,
Anna
Divine Intervention 
Unfortunately the ill-informed would rather go along, to get along. Appauling isn’t it? Usually with some ill contrived view of what actually is happening as we see.