Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
The next Billy Graham
As we noted on Saturday, Joel Belz made an argument that the great winner between McCain and Obama in the Saddleback Forum was actually its moderator Rick Warren, who outshined more experienced newsmen with his good questions and his general demeanor and confidence. He looked like a reasonable man, not some religious nutjob. The Economist agrees with Belz, suggesting that Warren is the next Billy Graham, whatever that means.
Both men have proved to be geniuses at adapting religion to their times. Mr. Graham took the barbed-wire fundamentalism of his youth and reshaped it for the post-war era of two-car garages and upward mobility. Mr. Warren took post-war evangelicalism and reshaped it, yet again, for the world of suburban anomie and the search for meaning.
I don’t know. This matters politically, but seems rather pedestrian on an infinite timeline. What do you think?
back to top51 Comments to “The next Billy Graham”
All Christians should be “little Billy Grahams.” That would change the world, for sure.
Report comment to moderator
The economist article was written pre-forum. Warren’s post-forum performance has lowered his credibility.
Report comment to moderator
Warren’s stature increased with the Saddleback forum. He asked a series of penetrating and heartfelt questions that resonated with the live and video audience. This forum was far more revealing of both McCain and Obama than any of the media moderated forums that have become rather canned.
Rick Warren’s credibility has been lowered only by some in the Obama camp who are vastly overplaying the sound cone and question glitches as a defense for the poor performance of their candidate.
While I admire Rick Warren, I look to Albert Mohler and John Piper as better leading evangelical lights.
Report comment to moderator
I re-learned a lesson.
Before the forum, I had a few yellow flags up in my mind about Rick Warren because in recent years, most of what I heard about him was showing (what seemed like) an opportunist leftward drift and an insensitivity toward the right.
Now I realize that my flags were more from media portrayals of him–sound byte portrayals that were so selective that they made it look like he was drifting to the left and insensitive to the right.
And yet, maybe he is drifting to the left, I don’t know. But my lesson was that I should NOT presume things about anyone that I am getting from the media.
Report comment to moderator
The next Billy Graham will have to be another prophet honored by his own nation, and that describes mega-celebrity Warren.
The Saddleback broadcast was my first exposure to him. Warren is definitely a post-Dobson evangelical, a sensitive, caring, beefy man in a macho goatee. He provided a constant hum of empathetic vocalizations together with the utmost seriousness of a physician diagnosing whether his patient will live or die.
Graham was the more blatant partisan, and that was a sad thing for evangelicalism. On the other hand, he was the more elegant speaker, having the advantage of a tradition of oratory that goes back to vast crowds in open fields, with the Word of the Lord using a thrilling human larynx rather than an electronically amplified sound system. Warren talks with the intimacy of contemporary screen actors who have the microphone placed at the back of their throat.
Also, Rick is unctuous, as Billy never was.
Report comment to moderator
Warren’s performance raised not just his credibility, but he made Christians and pastors look better. And I began with some skepticism about him. The media are not pleased with this. Everyone I have spoken to has told me how much clearer that forum was than any other debate or meeting they have seen led by journalists.
Journalists should take some notes from what happened at Saddleback.
Still, I don’t think Obama has ever shared a stage (for a debate, interview or any form of mutual communication) with a conservative to this day. Let me know if that’s not correct.
Report comment to moderator
Even though it doesn’t take much talent to make the MSM look like they are lazy. on the DNC payroll, unprincipled, lacking in character and in the tank for Obama – generally just plain worthless, you have to give the Rick Warren his due for for doing their jobs for them, making it ;look easy, enjoying it and not charging them for the doing it.
I loved Andrea Mitchell saying that her bosses in the Obama campaign were saying to her that Rick Warren passed the questions and Obama answers on to McCain and that they conspired to make their Messiah do so poorly in this question and answer session – even though Obama went first and messed it all up from the get go – without any help from anyone.
But don’t forget, gods don’t help from mere mortals.
Every day that goes by, and Americans get to see this new god being forced on them, they don’t like him much as their next president. His cake just won’t rise in time regardless of how muxh hope he promises for the future – and regardless of the MSM that is on his and the DNC payroll. The election commison should make all the MSM supposed journalists register as Obama campaign lobbyists adn as Marxist propaghandists.
Report comment to moderator
joel mcsame is mcsame a conservative?
innerstin’
Report comment to moderator
You know, Obama did mess it up from the get go — he interrrupted Warren right at the beginning to say a little prepared “speech,” then Warren mentioned listening in his first question.
I only read the transcript, but Warren’s words showed no favoritism. In fact, when McCain started to go off on another story, Warren pulled him out of it.
It isn’t anyone’s fault but Obama’s that he didn’t answer the questions as forthrightly as he should have. Obama has been treated with kid gloves by the MSM, he was treated fairly here, too. The difference was that so was McCain.
The “debates” we’ll see will put the MSM journalists in the hotseat, too. People have now seen how a man acting in good faith can ask questions and just let the candidates speak for themselves, thereby letting the people evaluate them.
Warren’s way of doing things, openly and honestly, without favoritism, showed him to be fundamentally fair — and this, I think, is the “change” people want.
People will trust Warren the same way they trusted Billy Graham, more than they trust his son, Franklin. It will be harder for the MSM to demonize Christians. That Joel Mark has come out in Warren’s corner gives me reason to trust him, too.
Report comment to moderator
Obama submitted to a lengthy interview on Fox News in April.
Nevertheless, JOEL MARK is certainly correct that Obama does poorly in verbal contest with opponents. McCain clearly won the encounter on the jousting field of Nixonland. Obama simply doesn’t have it in him to knock McCain off his horse and stand on his neck, and is very likely to have this done to him in all the upcoming debates.
On the adjacent Saddleback thread, WorldMagBloggers have effectively highlighted Obama’s weaknesses.
JOEL MARK said McCain “defeated Obama clearly.”
PETER LEAVITT concluded that “Obama is essentially a gaseous fraud with no significant accomplishment in his life. . . . Obama came through in a rather stiff Stevensonian intellectual style.”
DRILL:
“Obama . . . believes Jesus Christ is a liar and a fraud . . .Obama becomes a prattling fool . . . His rambling discourses are the semantic equivalent of mathematical zeroes. . . Obama displayed all the intelligence and oratory and integrity of a plucked chicken, on the way to the pot . . . Obama cannot handle the unscripted environment (or even a ’somewhat’ unscripted environment).”
I’m sad to report that DAILYKOS has been devoting most of its attention of late to Congressional and State races. Liberals themselves are disappointed in the weakness of candidate Obama.
Report comment to moderator
So, Scroopy, do you think Rick Warren is the next Billy Graham?
Report comment to moderator
I know Warren has generated a lot of favorable press. But making him the Billy Graham heir presumptive? No credit extended to John Piper or Franklin Graham? Joel Olsteen or his air rage-prone bride/co-pastor? How about the pastoral leadership of South Barrington, Illinois’ uber-church (Sorry folks but evidently the top man at Willow Creek eschews the paparazzi. Pator Rick Warren, not so much?)
I hope no pastor anywhere is out there hungering for the acclaim of men, preaching only what itching ears want to hear etc etc etc..
Report comment to moderator
Do we even want a next Billy Graham? Great fellow and all that of course, but I believe he let some of this theological positions slide towards the end of his life–a response to continued pressure from progressives and a move away from controversial ideas.
This is usually a bad sign.
Report comment to moderator
Rick Warren seems to have the self-maintaining celebrity that, once established, crowds out competing representatives of his specialty from the popular media.
The fact that the next Billy Graham will be a mega-pastor rather than a roving apostle of evangelism is somewhat interesting. Perhaps a leading indicator of the fact that we have to fix the home rather than conquer the world.
I predict that the next Billy Graham will be another Billy Graham, tragically identified with the continuing fracture of American culture into two warring camps that hate each other as enemies of what it means to be an American. The next Billy will comfort the one and invoke the fire of Hell (subtly, of course) against the other. He (not she) will be a Republican and will use his spiritual influence delicately to disqualify and oppose Democrats. This will be our fate for at least another generation.
Report comment to moderator
Rick Warren is no Billy Graham, not even close.
Don’t under estimate Franklin Graham, he has done a wonderful work with AIDS in Africa, his endless work in many places the minute there is a disaster. Franklin doesn’t seek the spotlight, however when he’s in it, he proclaims the Gospel of Jesus Christ, he doesn’t promote books, or himself, the LORD.
Rick Warren is one of the “Emergent Church” leaders – this is fairly well known in Evangelical circles.
Report comment to moderator
Last sentence should read:
Franklin doesn’t seek the spotlight, however when he’s in it, he proclaims the Gospel of Jesus Christ, he doesn’t promote books, or himself, he talks about his LORD and Savior.
Report comment to moderator
Billy Graham presided spiritually over the fracture of America by Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan in various elections between 1964 and 1972.
Just as Abraham Lincoln brought forth a new nation in the Gettysburg Adress and the victory of Union, so Nixon and Reagan brought forth a new nation, conceived in disunion, and forged in blood and fire. They defined the terms of our enduring battles.
Billy Graham was the minister who christened the schizophrenic American monster that arose from the fury of race and war in that period of crisis. Graham taught the beast its incommensurate visions of the apocalypse and inspired it with the fear that the triumph of one or the other congeries of Americans would be the end of everything true and decent in the world.
Rick Warren is probably up to the job.
Report comment to moderator
Billy Graham was around a long time already before Nixon and/or Reagan.
Most presidents have called on him in the last 50 some odd years, even Clinton.
Report comment to moderator
Does Rick Warren look like an elephant?
Does everyone here feel like blind people?
Report comment to moderator
Moth,
YOU WRITE:… “Rick Warren is probably up to the job.”
A man called of GOD Almighty to tell the world about HIMSELF, Salvation and the way to Eternal life is not a job, its a calling from the LORD.
Millions of people have flocked to stadiums, arena’s around the world to hear Billy Graham, he preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Even today, the films of his Crusades are televised, and many watch. The LORD gifted Graham with the blessing of an Evangelist, and Graham heeded the call.
Report comment to moderator
Have I missed something? Why are we all speaking of the man as though he is already dead?
Why are we looking for another Billy Graham? Let God raise up whomever He will to speak truth to power.
And if God does not raise up another man so gifted, why should we presume to try to replace him?
We have a tendency to want to make celebrities out of everyone.
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER: Billy Graham was around a long time already before Nixon and/or Reagan.
Good point. William Randolph Hearst raised Billy up to be the nation’s man of God in 1950 during a time when America still believed itself to be at consensus. Henry Luce completed Billy’s apotheosis as the spiritual head of the White Protestant Nation, at peace with itself.
We know the tragic fate of our beautiful self-portrait as a country, as we were torn by race and war. Reagan’s “Time of Choosing” and Nixon’s appeal to the “Silent Majority” fractured the country politically and gave us the order of battle we still obey.
Graham was Nixon’s friend and imprimatur. Graham’s regret over the loss of America’s mythic consensus only made the encroaching division more bitter. Graham definitely gave an apocalyptic edge to the conflicts Nixon and Reagan set in motion
Report comment to moderator
I know people like Joel Osteen, but isn’t he a lightweight when it comes to being a preacher? I don’t see him taking an interest in “politics” as Warren has — and I suspect Warren may only be seizing the opportunity to show the MSM and the rest of us that there is a way of talking about things in a civil manner — he said that several times in his remarks. Of course, it may bear other fruit. I think he did a good job.
What came through about each candidate is what came through. Warren showed the country that it is possible to just sit down with candidates, ask the same questions and be fair about it without all the rancor. It is the rest of the world which is declaring a winner and a loser, not Warren. This was a good lesson for the country, and I’m glad he did this “debate” the way he did. Both candidates were free to speak without a real time limit. Warren is not responsible for what they said. They are.
Right now, I don’t see Warren as the person presidents will call for advice the way they did Billy Graham, but he’ll fulfill whatever purpose God has for him.
Report comment to moderator
Moth,
Hearst didn’t raise up Billy Graham, the LORD gave Graham the gift of an Evangelist. Chandler, was publisher of the Los Angeles Times, Hearst was the publisher of the Los Angeles Examiner.
Billy Graham’s star was born at his 1949 revival in Los Angeles
By Cecilia Rasmussen
September 02, 2007
During a career spanning more than half a century, religious crusader the Rev. Billy Graham urged presidents, gangsters and African lepers to “take Christ into your heart and be saved.”
But it was his first crusade, in Los Angeles in 1949, that catapulted him to religious stardom.
He called it the Greater Los Angeles Billy Graham Crusade at the “Canvas Cathedral With the Steeple of Light.” Graham, then 30, drew 350,000 people over eight weeks to a huge tent at Washington Boulevard and Hill Street. About 3,000 nonbelievers committed their lives to Christ, according to Times stories then.
On Sept. 25, 1949, the young Southern Baptist preacher from North Carolina launched his L.A. crusade, sponsored by hundreds of Christian leaders in Southern California. The faithful filled the seats each night, with thousands more standing outside or listening in parked cars, as Graham quoted Scripture and discussed his tours of Europe after World War II.
“All across Europe, people know that time is running out,” he said. “Now that Russia has the atomic bomb, the world is in an armament race driving us to destruction.”
The press called it the greatest revival since the fire and brimstone evangelism of flamboyant early 20th century preacher Billy Sunday.
Among the many who turned out was former teenage delinquent and Olympic track star Lou Zamperini, now 90. Zamperini roomed with Jesse Owens at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, stole a Nazi flag from the German chancellery during the Games and shook the hand of Adolf Hitler.
During World War II, he survived 47 days on a raft in the Pacific, only to be rescued by the Japanese, who put him through horrors as a prisoner of war. But he says Graham saved his life.
“I was a mess,” Zamperini said in a recent interview. “I fell apart after the war. I was a drunk. I suffered terrible nightmares and was having marital problems.
“But my wife was a determined woman who dragged me down to see Graham. I walked out mad the first time. I didn’t want to hear that I had sinned. Just to shut her up, I went back.”
Then something clicked.
“I had a flashback about sitting there on a life raft. I came home alive and never thanked God. I felt terribly ashamed. When I got off my knees, I knew I was through getting drunk,” he said. “Billy Graham helped save me.”
Word that Hollywood celebrities were “stepping forward to receive Christ” reached publishing magnate William Randolph Hearst, who sent a two-word telegram to every editor in his newspaper chain: “Puff Graham.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/02/local/me-then2
Report comment to moderator
“William Randolph Hearst raised Billy up to be the nation’s man of God”
Or maybe God used Hearst’s “puff Graham” arrogance to advance His purposes and see the Gospel preached. The search to anoint a successor to Billy Graham is silly. Rick Warren is a different sort of preacher doing a different sort of work. Jonathan Edwards, and Whitfield, and the Wesleys, Asbury, Finney, Moody and Billy Sunday, all lived their lives and ministries before God and were recognized by men, not elevated and appointed by them.
Richard Nixon accomplished some very good things and destroyed himself with his own tragic failures. When cities burned, and kids took over college buildings and rioted in the streets, and radicals bombed corproate and military buildings, blaming the Silent Majority for fracturing the country is a ham-handed distortion of a very real history that many of us remember too well.
Report comment to moderator
This is a coincidental post for me. I am in the middle of Graham’s autobiography and was thinking about who would compare to his influence today. My conclusion was Warren. It remains to be seen if his world presence is more than a flash in the pan.
Report comment to moderator
I do recall reading once where Hearst instructed one of his editorial page underlings to “puff up” Billy Graham.
But Billy would have received notice with or without WRH, IMHO
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner,
Graham’s Crusade in LA was already a huge success, Hearst had nothing to do with it. Hearst sent his people over AFTER it was obvious that Billy Graham’s message of Salvation was being heard by thousands.
Report comment to moderator
yeah i know a lot of people in black mountain that did tons of coke and drank white likker with franklin graham. i’m sure the possibility of inheriting an empire had nothing to do with his ‘conversion’.
i’m just happy to have dug some of billy graham’s ginseng. if you have never been to the cove, you should go. good example of what is wrong with institutional religion.
Report comment to moderator
Poor Erasmus
Report comment to moderator
If Rick Warren wants to be the next Billy NWO Graham, he’s going to have to cut down on the Saddlesores Church Starbucks Lattes and crullers.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus is fantasizing again about the virtues of down home nature. He hasn’t got the message that logical positivism, the notion that nothing is true unless proved empirically, was disproved about fifty years ago by Van Quine and Flew, among others. Scientists including Newton, Einstein, and Newton attributed nature to the mind of God, though Erasmus clings to the quaint notion that nature is the result of some sort of random variation.
Since in his addled mind all men are just a bunch of Daarwinian animals, Erasmus can’t make any distinction between Obama and MCCain.
Report comment to moderator
#31
I dragged my poor old carcass on to the treadmill this morning and stuck to soup for lunch, so I will laugh at your comment.
Report comment to moderator
KEN: . . . blaming the Silent Majority for fracturing the country is a ham-handed distortion of a very real history that many of us remember too well.
I didn’t blame the “silent majority.” I blamed Reagan and Nixon for splitting the country politically over war and race, for driving the hatreds that defined other Americans as unamerican, for embittering voters over the loss of a mythic American consensus, for making Americans actually want to kill each other for ideological reasons. I blamed Billy for offering the benediction for this evil war which has been our tragedy for 40 years and will remain with us until a lot of us are dead.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t blame Nixon or Reagan for the loss of the American consensus — it has been the liberals who have been tearing this country down in the past 40 years. It is the liberals who teach children in school what is wrong with America without teaching what is right with America. It is liberals who want to change how the Constitution is viewed to suit their own purposes.
Don’t blame Nixon. Don’t blame Reagan. Nixon may have had his problems, but they were both patriots who loved this country.
Report comment to moderator
Moth, you have a pathetically cartoonist view of the complex events of modern history. Ken and NJLawyer see these matters in much better perspective.
Report comment to moderator
Unfortunately, Pumpkin, you’re not responsive enough to contrary discussion to make your judgments stick.
My view may be wrong, but it’s rooted in reputable historical literature which goes to levels of complexity you never demonstrate here.
NJLAWYER states the contrary thesis that liberals, not Reagan and Nixon, tore apart our politics. So how is that not cartoonish, while my elaboration — over multiple, responsive posts — is?
We’ll not agree on the origins of our political divisions. But we can recall Bob Dole’s eulogy at Nixon’s funeral, when he predicted that historians would look at the second half of the 20th C as “The Age of Nixon.” I disagree with what Dole meant by that, but I agree that it’s a good prediction.
Americans remain divided as they became in the election of 1968, pretty much along the same patterns, disputing over similar themes. We have two different identities, you and I, pretty much defining each other as evil. Extreme members of our groups fantasize about killing members of the other group, and sometimes they do, for ideological reasons.
The arguments over Richard Nixon in the late 60’s, and the concurrent arguments over Reagan in California in the same time, reverberate on this blog, and on this thread.
Report comment to moderator
Given the past record of “star” preachers, I won’t be surprised if something befalls Rev. Warren. The odds of him being another Billy Graham are against him.
He may not be traditional conservative Christian in his theology, but on social issues he’s a “true blue” right-winger. I’m really not fooled by his “Oprah” qualities.
Report comment to moderator
Whether its Bill Graham or Rick Warren, “Do not put your faith in princes nor the son of man in whom there is no help”, Psalm 146:3. That goes for Barak and McCain as well. Why do Evangelicals feel they need a Pope-like personality?
If you want to get a little more insight into Warren, check out these two articles:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1830147,00.html
This one is very interesting:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53688
Enough said.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth in #10:
Man, thanks for the little summary of some of the things I have written about Obama. Are you going to recycle them on the Daily Kos or something, after changing the target name?
I see I will have to become a bit more forthright and blunt about this miserable candidate you leftists have picked; enough of this wishy-washy mild sauce I have been serving up.
Most seriously, I wondered and still do wonder how you guys could have made such a severe error in picking Obama, due to his extremist record – he has been rated the most far-left Senator and has a personal/political/worldview history (Wright, Avery, etc.) that should have been ENORMOUS red flags to any strategist from the standpoint of the general election.
It is as if the Republicans picked a sort of a cross between Tom Delay (highly partisan) and a David Duke (no more needs to be said).
Heck. Hillary Clinton would have been a far more formidable candidate (I think). And if you HAD to have a minority, surely there are more ‘centrist’ minority possibilities still left in the Democrat Party.
Or maybe not – the Democrat Party national leadership is pretty much owned and operated now by the way-out-of-touch far left-wing, which has thrived on inciting and enabling race and class warfare and facilitating minority economic dependence on the government, which gives the Democrats such a large part of their reliable base. So that pool may simply not exist within the Democrat Party anymore.
I guess the Obama pick made sense given the far-left drivers in the Primary but I think it is more problematic in the national election, to say the least. He is both ideologically and personally removed from the mainstream of the American people.
Hopefully, the further into the election season we get, the more people will find out about his positions and his problems, and the further his numbers will drop.
And, if they drop enough and there is little chance that he would be elected (I don’t think that will happen), I will probably vote third-party, which I am thinking about anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Drill —
Would you like me to exchange views with you or broadcast propoganda? If the former, I’d be happy to reveal some answers on the QT. If the later, then you are doing all the pre-convention, pre-debate work I could ever do, and more, and there’s nothing left for me but to egg you on. (Of course Obama will lose the debates because he has nothing in his brain, and he can’t say it, and because, despite that, somehow he’s also the most ideologically extreme operative in the Senate. What a loser!)
What I can’t figure out is why you even talk to Stalinist baby-murderers instead of exterminating as many as you can. Seriously.
It’s hard for me to see through your pure drivel, Drill, for it’s extremely so, in every sense, to understand your connection with the world I inhabit. Even if I could, why should I try to modify any of your views and rhetoric, which are so helpful to the Democratic Party? I’m praying the Lord will send an army of laborers like you out into the fields this Fall!
Oh, shoot, I’ll tell you anyway. Truth be known, leftists don’t consider Obama to belong within the tradition of American progressive politics, either in rhetoric or policy. We place him center-left. He represents a social phenomenon, but not a social movement, and certainly not a progressive one. There are too many things missing, starting with a clear, ringing purpose. So far, he’s merely a noble reformer of the political process, like Perot or John Anderson from previous generations. The politician he loves the most, and wants to pick as his VP, but is being advised not to, for political expedience, is the conservative, Gov. Kane, a choice that would result in half the progressives in America jumping out windows.
Report comment to moderator
There we go again, trying to predict the future with one eye on the past. There was no “Billy Graham” prior to Billy Graham, so why do we expect God to fashion the next one out of the same cloth (or wineskin)? This is like watching 1966 episodes of “Star Trek” today in an attempt to predict what the future will be like on Earth in 1980.
Report comment to moderator
Solon this is you.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth:
Just because I tell you the hard truth, doesn’t mean I don’t love you, you know. There is ALWAYS repentance possible, even in the most committed Stalinist/Statist – and even for those who support and justify – and even engage in – the murder of children. I have known a couple, myself.
As far as ol’ Drill giving Obama a boost – if that were true, it ain’t working real well, Scroop Moth.
You might better consider another strategy – telling the truth about the sorry past record of your candidate and maybe wearing sackcloth and sitting in a can of ashes could at least prove laudable for your character development.
‘Cause Obama is currently tanking and I see you and other leftists are taking to the ropes like rats deserting a sinking ship.
I would not flee the listing ship OBAMA just yet, though, Scroop Moth.
You may be underestimating the numbers that Oprah can bring in for your candidate.
There are still ALOT of ignorant people out there who are practically BEGGING to be walled off from the truth – if just for a couple more months.
So he (Obama) could still win.
Now don’t say I don’t ever try to support you in the down times.
Report comment to moderator
There are still ALOT of ignorant people out there who are practically BEGGING to be walled off from the truth – if just for a couple more months.
durn right. They are called voters.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the support, Drill. Just let everybody know, going into the convention and debates, that Obama’s an alien who can’t think straight or talk on his own. Please, make people think that. Bring down his approval and raise his negative another percent. Don’t forget to tell them how wonderful McCain is, either. More than anything, this is what Obama needs right now, and I’m glad you’re giving it to him.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth: He is no alien – from the standpoint of abortion, he is (like so many others including, I suppose, you) an inevitable product of a society that is going off the moral rails.
But either Obama CAN’T think straight on abortion, which is scary enough – and he shouldn’t be president.
Or he does think straight on it and that is REALLY scary.
The morality of killing full-term healthy children is not ‘above his pay grade’, or anyone else’s either.
For any reasonable person, even the generically confused average ‘pro-abort’, it calls into question (at the very least) every single position he takes on everything else; war, history, compassion, etc. Or it should.
The only ‘right’ answer for Obama to have made on the abortion question based on his own record would have been to have said ‘at birth’ – otherwise he is saying (at the least) that he is or may be enabling the murder of children.
Instead he weaseled and showed that he full knows what he supports.
I would not personally trust children of any age with this guy – nor in fact with anyone who supports partial birth abortion. I guess if someone believed that human life only began after a ‘wanted’ delivery of a child, they might be somewhat ’safe’ with children. But not with someone who was ‘not sure’ and yet supported and enabled partial birth abortion, anyway.
What exactly is human life worth to someone like this? Apparently, very little.
And if I could not trust children with him, how could I be happy if he was entrusted with the Republic?
If he really doesn’t know, then how can he support what he supports?
Yeah, I hope he loses the election. For a whole range of political issues, but ESPECIALLY on this one, which is much deeper than political.
The Democrats have chained themselves to the bloody stinking corpse of abortion-on-demand; it drags and bumps behind them, everywhere they go.
Yeah. You can bet I will be harping on it. Every chance I get.
Report comment to moderator
drill my friend you can have safe abortions or you can have women doing desperate things. it is your pick, and the fact that both choices involve OTHER PEOPLES DECISIONS should clue you into the fact that it was never your business in the first place
drink that koolaid up, son, next round is free.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve come to like Rick Warren over the years. I was never much for the seeker-sensitive model of church growth. But I saw him a few years ago on Larry King. He conducted himself intelligently and came across well. He fielded some hard questions about Christianity with grace and humor. He wasn’t trying to jocky the conversation to present his “three-point gospel” speech. I said to myself, “I would be happy for Rick Warren to speak for us.”
Report comment to moderator
Outdeep
What would make you happy OR satisfied that Rick Warren might say on behalf of whoever ‘US’ are. What words would Rick Warren say?
Can one man like Rick Warren speak for whoever ‘US’ is?
Rick Warren isn’t in charge of the Church of Jesus Christ, nor can he speak for us as the ‘bride of Christ’ -
Report comment to moderator
Outdeep
What is the “three-point gospel” speech” — ?
Is that the way to Salvation by grace and belief in Jesus Christ as Savior, to attain Eternal life, with Christ? Is that what you mean?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!