Warren apologizes for support of Prop 8

Bryan Fischer, Executive Director

WARREN APOLOGIZES ON LARRY KING FOR HIS SUPPORT OF ONE-MAN, ONE-WOMAN MARRIAGE

Nothing is plainer in the Scripture than that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. In the second chapter of the Bible, we find, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).

The New Testament affirms this original standard: “Each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:2). Not much mysterious or ambiguous there.

The minimum the Christian church should expect from its spiritual leaders is clear and unapologetic adherence to this biblical standard, especially from pastors who tell us that the Bible is the “rule of faith and practice.”

So if you want to understand why we are losing the culture war, you probably don’t need to look any further than Rick Warren, he of the famously seeker-friendly model of tepid Christianity. On “Larry King Live” last night, Warren apologized for his support of Proposition 8, saying his supportive comments were only made at the very last minute and only in response to a question from a parishioner.

Proposition 8, as you recall, established the one-man, one-woman definition of marriage in the California constitution. If there was ever a constitutional amendment that should have the unhesitating support of any spiritual leader who believes in the Bible and the sanctity of marriage, this was it.

But Warren did everything in his power last night to distance himself from Prop 8. Said he,

“During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never – never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going.”

He thus takes pride in being completely AWOL while this huge battle over the spiritual and moral fabric of our nation was taking place in his own state.

After answering a question from a parishioner a week or so before the election, in which he supported the biblical definition of marriage, the public furor began. Warren’s response? He immediately apologized. “I wrote to all my gay friends – the leaders that I knew – and actually apologized to them.” Regretfully, Warren says, “That never got out.”

Eventually King asked him, “Do you, therefore criticize or not comment on the Iowa court decision to permit gay marriage?”

Warren: “Yes. I’m – I’m totally oblivious to – to what – that’s not even my agenda.”

Martin Luther once famously said, “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved.”

Breaking news today is that the legislature of Vermont has overridden its governor’s veto of a bill which will legalize same-sex marriage. This is a development that cannot be underestimated, since it represents the first time homosexual marriage has been legalized through the legislative process rather than through judicial tyranny.

Where are the voices of truth in the pulpits of America to stand against this rapid descent into the darkness? Where?

God help us, and God help the United States of America. We’re in deeper trouble than we know.

Pam's House Blend:: Rick Warren lies about his homobigotry on Larry King Live

GOP FACES CHALLENGE FOR MINNICK SEAT IN 2010

Democrat Walt Minnick is gaining enough of a reputation for being a fiscal maverick that he has merited a feature article on Politico.com. (He did, however, vote for the SCHIP bill, a $32 billion tax increase that hits the poor the hardest and makes families making up to $80,000 eligible for taxpayer-purchased health benefits.)

It’s easy to believe he’s struck a deal with Speaker Nancy Pelosi to go off the Democrat tax-and-spend reservation enough times to develop a reputation as a budget hawk, and it’s working. The Dems have enough cushion in Congress they can afford to let Minnick go rogue as often as he needs to.

Minnick essentially bought his congressional seat by spending an unheard of sum of $4.5 million to defeat staunch conservative Bill Sali last fall. Sali, whose voting record was unimpeachable and consistent with the values of his constituents, simply couldn’t compete against that avalanche of cash. Sali didn’t have enough

reserves on hand to defuse misleading Minnick ads in the waning days of the campaign that ludicrously tried to paint Sali as opposed to benefits for veterans.

Sources I have talked with indicate that Minnick may be prepared to spend up to $6 million in 2010 to retain the seat, presenting a daunting challenge to any GOP challenger.

The names being bandied about as potential challengers include Sali, state legislators Raul Labrador, John McGee and Ken Roberts, Attorney General Lawrence Wasden and state Treasurer Ron Crane. Also in the mix is little-known Iraq war veteran Vaughn Ward.

Roberts’ profile is probably not high enough to give him a credible chance. Labrador and McGee, while each has a consistently conservative voting record and a bright future, likely lack the experience and the heft to make a serious run at Minnick in 2010, while Wasden may have a hard time distinguishing himself from Minnick on fiscal matters and may have to burnish his social credentials. He is a bit of a lackluster campaigner, and may find it difficult to energize the base.

Apart from Sali, Crane seems to have the most realistic shot at Minnick, and well-placed sources tell me he is giving serious consideration to throwing his hat in the ring. He’s likeable, solidly conservative on social issues, and may be able to draw support from country club Republicans, something which they moronically withheld from Sali in 2008.

If Sali does not run, there is a good chance he could be persuaded to back Crane, which would elevate Crane’s stature in the solidly conservative Republican base in the first CD.

Should Crane run, he will need to monitor every single one of Minnick’s votes, and brush up on his arguments in support of the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family parts of the GOP platform, which is where he can separate himself from Minnick.

Minnick received significant support from both Planned Parenthood and NARAL in the last election cycle, making his pro-abortion sympathies clear. By the time November of 2010 rolls around, Minnick’s only vulnerabilities may be his determination to march in lockstep with President Obama’s radical pro-abortion and pro-homosexual agenda.

Crane’s message to citizens in the first CD would be simple: do you want a representative in DC who represents some of your values, or one who represents all of your values?

Idaho Dem reliably bucks leadership - Alex Isenstadt - POLITICO.com

MUTATIONS: PRIMARY ARGUMENT AGAINST EVOLUTION

It cannot be stated too often that the only mechanism evolution has to explain the growing complexity of life is genetic mutation. But as every geneticist will tell you, randomly occurring genetic mutations are almost invariably harmful if not fatal to the organism. That’s why most mutations are called “birth defects.”

(The following information was part of the presentation on intelligent design I made to a Treasure Valley public high school science class last week.)

One famous evolutionist, Julian Huxley, estimated that, based on the most optimistic estimate possible, only one in every one thousand mutations are beneficial, and he calculated that the odds of accumulating the millions and millions of beneficial mutations required for even tiny little advances in evolutionary

progress are impossibly small.

In fact, he calculated the odds at one in 1,000 to the millionth power. That’s a one with three million zeroes after it, a number so impossibly large that it would take three books of 500 pages each just to print it.

Researchers received a Nobel Prize in 1995 for bombarding the ordinary fruit fly with enough radiation to engineer mutations that produced flies with an extra set of wings.

Unfortunately, the wings on these poor little guys had no flight muscles, which made it impossible for the flies to, well, fly, which in turn resulted in their early and sad demise. Hardly a strong argument for evolution.

Plus, after all those mutations, they were still fruit flies! And they got a Nobel Prize for that! This only demonstrates how dismally rare beneficial mutations are.

If scientists are some day actually able to engineer mutations in the laboratory that lead to increasingly complex forms of life, they’ll simply be making our argument for us: we told you it takes intelligence and design.

As the following BBC article illustrates, naturally occurring mutations, whether caused by the sun or something else, are harmful and hardly beneficial. Melanoma, it turns out, is caused by just such a mutation.

BBC NEWS | Health | Mutation 'sparks most melanoma'