Rick Warren Says President Obama 'Infringed' on Religious Liberties
Evangelical megachurch pastor Rick Warren recently stated that President Barack Obama has "infringed" upon religious freedom in America.
The pastor of California-based Saddleback Church made these remarks to the Huffington Post, saying that Obama is "absolutely" unfriendly to religion and his administration's policies have "intentionally infringed upon religious liberties."
In an interview with Marc Lamont Hill of Huff Post Live on Wednesday, Warren took issue with the contraception mandate issued by the Department of Health and Human Services earlier this year....
Jim Lincoln wrote: So far, at least their is no regulations that a person has to make use of contraceptives or other features of the healthcare program,..
Jim, you are too politically astute and well-informed to have missed the on going debate about the HHS regulation that businesses must provide contraception free of charge (which it is not free as the user pays for their Obamacare) The issue is not whether the user uses the provision but that the company must provide to those who would. The president does not have a problem granting exemptions, he has given over 1200 of them. A business should not have to provide ANY kind of healthcare, that is not their purpose, never mind one that conflicts with their moral values. As to the issue of rulers, Peter told the Sanhedrin we ought to obey God rather than man, and the Lord called Herod a fox, and the religious rulers snakes.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Wow, I'm sorry to see that you think the Apostle Paul was an abomination to God! He never said anything bad about Nero, at least it isn't recorded in Scripture -- where it counts. But we do have to thank God, that Obama got in instead of the Romney/Ryan, because they are an abomination to God, Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses at least until they become Christian.
You mean Christian like Obama, I take it? Dots not connected?
I don't think Paul said anything about Nero, did he? As for God setting up all rulers:
"They have set up kings, but not by Me; They have appointed princes, but I did not know it. With their silver and gold they have made idols for themselves, That they might be cut off." Hosea 8:4 NASB
Be careful what wickedness you justify, Jim, for your own sake.
Wow, I'm sorry to see that you think the Apostle Paul was an abomination to God! He never said anything bad about Nero, at least it isn't recorded in Scripture -- where it counts.
But we do have to thank God, that Obama got in instead of the Romney/Ryan, because they are an abomination to God, Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses at least until they become Christian.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Ah, Mike of N.Y., remember Nero was to be honored? Romans 13 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil. 5 Wherefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor
You are to Render to Caesar
As I've said before Caesar should be rendered, like any bucket of lard.
What you have difficulty with is that you will not apply verses to reality. You see Nero as deserving honor according to Scripture. I see Nero as wicked, failing to do what Romans 13 requires of him that he may be considered a minister of God to you for good. Therefore Nero and all who justify him are abomination to the Lord.
Ah, Mike of N.Y., remember Nero was to be honored?
Romans 13 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil. 5 Wherefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.---NASB.
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- What is Ricky doing commenting on Obama at all? God's Sovereignty Over Rulers & Nations is a recognized fact. My pastor, if memory serves, doesn't even bring the President's name up in any sermon, let alone go on a national forum to grip about something. However, Ricky, isn't a Christian so he is just a good example of what not to do. By the way, I'm not sure if some Jewish butchers might not have a non-kosher section in their shops? So far, at least their is no regulations that a person has to make use of contraceptives or other features of the healthcare program, no more than a person who buys a handgun has to go out and shoot someone. If they did, then handguns be banned?
So even commenting on "rulers" is banned by the Bible? Ridiculous, but not unexpected, Jim.
Proverbs 17:15 "He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord." NASB
As for your logic with the guns, what you actually support is this: If a hand gun is bought, the government has to pay for the ammunition, or make others pay for it. Also ridiculous.
What is Ricky doing commenting on Obama at all? God's Sovereignty Over Rulers & Nations is a recognized fact. My pastor, if memory serves, doesn't even bring the President's name up in any sermon, let alone go on a national forum to grip about something. However, Ricky, isn't a Christian so he is just a good example of what not to do. By the way, I'm not sure if some Jewish butchers might not have a non-kosher section in their shops? So far, at least their is no regulations that a person has to make use of contraceptives or other features of the healthcare program, no more than a person who buys a handgun has to go out and shoot someone. If they did, then handguns be banned?
Jim Lincoln wrote: My lack of being Independent? ...
In all due respect you did not respond to my comment. Your lack of being independent is not only seen in your unfailing one sided criticism of Republicans but your constant defense of the political left and their agenda. Here we have a great example, where do we see you agree that it is wrong to push mandates on religious institutions that violate their beliefs (He has exempted so many others, mainly unions) I believe Mr. Warren was critical of the president's policies and did not make a personal attack on him. Unlike your personal attack against an Ivy school graduate's intelligence. Bill Moyers is a liberal. Some documented quotes from Wikipedia,"But the owner of the paper, Harry Guggenheim, a conservative, was disappointed by the liberal drift of the newspaper under Moyers; "PBS looks like a liberal monopoly to me, and Bill Moyers is Exhibit A of that very strident left-wing bias... [Moyers] uses his show as a platform from which to attack conservatives and Republicans."
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- Finally, the most important thing and to the article stop attacking God's chosen leader! 1 Peter 2:13-15 NASB
Even if we really stretch things to apply this to the US government, it wouldn't apply, for the "governors" sent by him for the punishment of evildoers would have to punish him and praise his enemies. How would that work out?
This is more appropriate: "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn" Proverbs 29:2
My lack of being Independent? This is because I criticized the intellectually challenged son of Bush Sr.? Bush-friendly Church Gets $1 Million 'Faith-based' Grant is not the first time I brought up the anti-Christian idea of the faith-based initiative, if I find the ADA response on it again fine, but here what a former Baptist had to say, and it's a very good response and not long either. Faith-based Initiative a Bad Idea. By the way this gave you an opening to attack this idea, no matter what President is using it! Only Bush? I'm sorry to say, I'm sure that Mr. Moyers talked about how Clinton sold the White House and A Culture of Corruption --but-- I'm going to agree with you there is mysterious disappearance of those anti-Clinton comments -- and he needed plenty of them!
Finally, the most important thing and to the article stop attacking God's chosen leader! 1 Peter 2:13-15 . Ricky should no better.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Not nearly as destructive Prez Baby Bush's ...
Your lack of being an independent is shining forth again. Because the article is critical of an Obama policy you gripe about a Bush policy from looks like 12 years ago. They really compare too, in one a church gets money from a government grant and in the other the government is forcing the church to go against it stated religious dogma. Whether or not you agree (which obviously you don't) with their conviction, our churches and their beliefs are next on the agenda. Fail to see how giving a church a government grant (not that I agree with the policy) is just as bad as forcing a church to obey a government mandate which includes giving the morning after abortion pill. Even if one was as reprehensible as the other, since when do two wrongs make a right. Do you justify bad policy by the democrats because there is bad policy by republicans? You are a pretty bright person but your logic that a grant is worse than government dictating to a religious institution how they may practice their faith seems a little odd.
William S. Sutherland wrote: Jim, Instead of dealing with the topic of the story, you must once again deflect attention away from the impostor-from-Kenya. Why do you defend such an antichrist politician as Obama? Bush hasn't been president for 4 years. When are you gonna change the record?
If liberals could discuss present issues, they wouldn't need to attack persons from the past.
William S. Sutherland wrote: Jim, Instead of dealing with the topic of the story, you must once again deflect attention away from the impostor-from-Kenya. Why do you defend such an antichrist politician as Obama? Bush hasn't been president for 4 years. When are you gonna change the record?
Good comment! We all have our own theories as to why he does that. In fact, the only answer he normally gives is to give the same response that you already noted. Go figure! But, it is healthy that you raised the issue.
Jim, Instead of dealing with the topic of the story, you must once again deflect attention away from the impostor-from-Kenya. Why do you defend such an antichrist politician as Obama?
Bush hasn't been president for 4 years. When are you gonna change the record?
Unfortunately its a matter of secular religion to provide these "services," which are a detriment to the country. Let alone,
Exodus 21 22 "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury,[q] he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.---NASB
1
There are a total of 16 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
Dots not connected? 
. Ricky should no better.
But, it is healthy that you raised the issue.
christopher000 from rhode island: "thoughts wrote:
'i'd question whether you've..."
