August 18, 2008, - 6:00 pm

On Rick Warren: What Neither Candidate Said @ the Saddleback Church

By Debbie Schlussel
Everyone watching the Presidential race is talking about the “debate” at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church.
But no one and neither of the candidates said what should have been said. And that’s that John McCain had no business being at a church of a man who legitimizes and panders to the same country he says he will not: Syria and its leader, Bashar Assad.
Rick Warren not only went to Syria, he praised it as a moderate country and expressed his admiration of it. Maybe next he’ll do the same for Myanmar and Sudan.
While his performance there was impressive, McCain is supposed to be the guy who says we’re fighting in Iraq so we don’t have to fight terrorists here–a completely fraudulent argument since the terrorists are already here and while we’re fighting them there, we’re capitulating to them here.

rickwarrenassad.jpg

The Company He Keeps:

Rick Warren Fetes Syrian Terrorist Tyrant Bashar Assad

So what the heck was he doing at the church of a left-wing pseudo-evangelical who reaches out to terrorists–who reaches out to terrorist host-state Syria, where sundry Islamic terrorist groups have their headquarters, where Nazi war criminal Alois Brunner lives in freedom and sanction, where Munich Olympic terrorist Jamil Al-Gashey lives in peace and sanction?
Why did John McCain not say no to Rick Warren? Or if he felt compelled to participate in this “debate,” why did he not say anything about it? He could have scored a lot of points by saying at some point during the debate that he thought it was wrong for a prominent American Christian pastor to legitimize this awful Nazi-like regime in Syria. But he said nothing.
That nauseates me. It shows me that, like Barack Hussein Obama, John McCain has no qualms about the company he keeps. And you can’t tell Obama you object to his ideas of dealing with terrorist states like Iran and Syria with no preconditions, and at the same time elevate the Christian minister who does exactly that when he gives the evangelical seal of approval to a mass murderer–Bashar Assad.
Any preacher or minister that fetes a man who barbarically tortures democratic dissent–as Assad does–and who is involved in the rape of another country, as Assad and his father, Hafez El-Assad did to Lebanon (not to mention the flattening of their own population in Hama), does not deserve the presence of a future President.
We know where Barack Obama stands on “outreach” to these despots. We thought we knew where John McCain stood.
With this Rick Warren confab, perhaps we were wrong.
***
By the way, I do not believe for a second that Pastor Rick Warren represents the thinking of most Evangelical Christians in America. Most of them are against pandering to and legitimizing Syria and the Assads. But, by appearing at Warren’s church and not pointing this out or voicing a tad of an objection, McCain helped elevate this left-wing pandering to Syria.






14 Responses

Those who preach and don’t live what they are preaching don’t exist for me.
And Rick Warren is one of them.
I have too many issues with him and people like him.
That’s why I didn’t watch that “show.”
I was watching a movie that seemed more realistic than the fictitious “pastor” and his company.

Independent Conservative on August 18, 2008 at 6:23 pm

I didn`t watch it either. Rick Warren and his weird theology do nothing for me. I did read about it afterwards though. Obama and his reply to the – when is a foetus considered a life question – “it`s above my pay grade” was asinine and childish, especially since he claims to be a solid Christian.

Hermster on August 18, 2008 at 6:43 pm

I agree with Debbie. But its still revealing when Obama gave flippant answers on the question of when life begins and dismissed the notion of evil as something that must be fought. Let’s not be detained by the fact he never mentioned Islamofascism or revanchist neo-Soviet imperialism as two of the evils threatening the Free World today. John McCain should have stayed away, though. Rick Warren is no defender of human rights when he appears in the company of totalitarian despots.

NormanF on August 18, 2008 at 6:49 pm

Is Rick Warren one of these Sojourner type lefty Christians a la Jim Wallis? They are haters of Israel and grovel to the third worlders.

lexi on August 18, 2008 at 7:24 pm

McCain’s participation with Rick Warren is disappointing, but not surprising. it is consistent with his approach of ‘reaching out’ to liberals in countless ways during his campaign, even to the extent of floating stories about a pro-choice VP pick. In a broader sense though, for many years, Republicans has participated in presidential debate panels chaired by the liberal media. They’re not all quite as bad as Carol Simpson, but most are close. It’s not that huge a step to a jerk like Warren.

c f on August 18, 2008 at 7:37 pm

Debbie, thank you for the info. I was unaware of Rick Warren’s Syrian connection. Can we assume McCain’s organization was also unaware? Not making excuses for them. In their position, they should have access to that kind of information. If they did, not a good situation on their (or his) part.

Floyd R. Turbo on August 18, 2008 at 8:43 pm

Debbie-
Warren deserves a a guest appearance on South Park…… since Michael Moore ‘blew up’ in Team America.

NickFury on August 18, 2008 at 10:03 pm

The one good thing about Syria is the general lack of recognition of their country as an “Arab” state. That is one reason why they are closer to Persians than Peninsula Arabs. If Bush had the balls to do ANYTHING with Iran, then Syria would implode with the Ayatollah’s collapse.

supercargo on August 18, 2008 at 10:33 pm

McCain’s not going to represent conservatives, he’s going to completely forget about us the second he’s elected. The first thing he’ll do is propose an amnesty bill, and then when the Dems try to out-amnesty him, he’ll go along with it. He’s going to try to keep the ‘moderate’ Republicans and Democrats happy, and all his conservative posturing will be for nothing. No way I’m voting for that party again.

John Harper on August 18, 2008 at 11:24 pm

It’s possible that McCain and his team had no idea of the stance and favor of this pastor. I consider myself up on current events but I had no idea about Warrens b.s. Many people are unaware of the associations of their aquaintences. Look at the Thompson campaign with their hiring of the wrong guys. Nobody knew then about that either. Candidates should be more aware of stuff like that but we did see McCain take action in getting rid of an islmonazi from his campaign (once he was made aware of it).

samurai on August 19, 2008 at 12:35 am

Evangelicals have a wide and varied range of views on Rick Warren and his methods. To my knowledge, he has attempted successfully to keep the main thing the main thing–namely the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ–thus many have come to “born again” faith through his writings and ministry.
This episode of his holding a presidential candidate’s Q & A from his church has him going where he ought not be. Why he felt it necessary to interject himself (and ostensibly a large wing of the Christian church whom he ‘presumed’ to be speaking for) into presidential politics this way–is disappointing and troubling.
A pastor educating people of faith on where that faith should lead them in assessing the candidates seems a reasonable use of the freedom of speech. But, bringing candidates in to “pander” to the church–to say the things they think will win them votes is misguided and foolish.
I am not sure that McCain should have refused participation based on Warren’s Syrian visits. I’ve never heard about that before, though it is troubling.
Regardless, a legitimate candidate should call a terrorist a terrorist and a spade a spade. I wish McCain was more principled to do so. He loves to call illegal aliens “God’s chidren….. many of whom also fought along side Americans in war..” Talk about twisted pandering! What a pathetic choice we have this November! It will be communist Obama or pragmatist McCain–whose pragmatism usually trumps all moral and ethical considerations.

BB on August 19, 2008 at 12:57 pm

BB,
Rick Warren had BOTH candidates at his church. He has the perfect right to quiz the candidates on the issues. It does not violate either the freedom of speech or the establishment of religion clause.
Get over this “separation of church and state” nonsense. It is “favoring the establishment of a religion.” At the time, it meant that the government cannot create a state church or favor one religion over another. Clergy have a perfect right to advocate a political view or campaign for a candidate as private citizens.
Holding a debate between two candidates does not violate the spirit of the First Amendment, let alone its literal interpretation. Get over your politically correct view on the subject–or your atheist bias–whichever the case may be.
Furthermore, our faith informs us on the political issues just as much as it does the atheists or even the Muslims. It only does it in a realistic way–not the vile, violent, arrogance of the aforementioned groups. Christian and Jewish clergy have a Divine obligation to address the social ills in our Republic. By doing so, we will address political issues: that is unavoidable.
The questions will tell us what we need to know about the moderator. The answers will tell us what we need to know about the candidates. That is what the campaign is about.
Let me ask you this: When is it “troubling and disturbing” for a church, pastor, rabbi, synagogue, or other institution/clergy to bring in candidates to inform their people about the candidates’ own reasons for running for office?
Or most important: What is so wrong about religious (especially Evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews) getting informed and VOTING?

Loser on August 20, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Debbie,
I was unaware of RW’s Syria connection. He should read his Bible. One of the prophets tells us that one day Damascus will be decimated and remain desolate forever thereafter. He should wonder why he put himself against his own Bible and his own G-d.

Loser on August 20, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Hey Loser–
Please read my post again that you took me to task for. I said Warren’s holding a pander-fest was MISGUIDED and FOOLISH–not that it is in appropriate for people of faith to take stands and advocate on the issues. Of course it is legal–duh. Advocating for issues is fine too.
Still, a Christian Pastor who has his head on straight does not allow himself to be spun by candidates in front of his flock and the nation. I have seen that a lot has come from Obama’s comments in the Q & A (like saying Clarence Thomas wasn’t qualifed to be nominated to the SC and so forth) in response to RW’s questions–and that was good.
Still I think Warren is mistaken in setting this as a new precedent–watch it will happen every presidential election from now on–and next time he’ll do the primaries too, no doubt.
If one takes the scriptures as authoritative, Pastors are commanded not to get entangled in “civilian affairs”–staying out of this is obvious. Why–because they are preachers of the message about Christ–keeping the main the main thing is what matters most.
Preaching about issues is always right when the faith demands it–I agree with you–it is necessary –but not to advocate for a particular candidate (for which the IRS can revoke a church’s tax-exempt status–unless it is for the Democrat in the black churches–that is always OK with the feds).

BB on August 22, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field