Well, firstly and most obviously, he is going against the President and Republican party line concerning Syria. The evangelicals who are in lockstep with the President may see this as a threat, and we know how well they deal with such percieved threats.

Another quarrel, less publicized, could be that by trying to foster a dialogue with Syria, he threatens to defuse hostilities and postpone Armageddon.

Either way, so much for the Gospel of Peace, eh?

Ah! Rick Warren is just seeking publicity. He just wants to sell more books. They say that bad press is better than no press at all, so it all helps.

From what I know of Mr Warren, he's got everything to lose and nothing much to gain by this.

Be cynical all you like, but at least someone is doing something to try and avert another bloody stupid war...

After all, as Hawking pointed out, our greatest failures are when we stop talking. I may not agree with Mr Warren on his beliefs, but I do admire his courage to apply them as he sees fit.

Judging by Lorena's response, seems that it's not just Christians who can be cone headed bigots.

Grandpa Harley

Let’s forget, for a moment, that Rick is a pastor of a mega church and look at what he has done and aspires to do.

He wrote a few books that did very well. He makes major public appearances to speak about these for free. He used some of the money from his books to pay back his employer every penny he received as salary over the last 25 years! (I won’t do this) He now lives off of 10% of his actual income and donates 90% to charities fighting AIDs, poverty, disease, illiteracy and intolerance. He has actively begun open dialogue with Gay and New Age groups, and even the governments of foreign and underdeveloped African countries. He also has a robust local ministry to the needy in the San Jose, Ca area and is actively looking to expand this ministry within the region.

Of all “publicly visible” folks in the religious community, Rick Warren appears to be a humble, selfless man, driven to make the world a better place and is continuing to demonstrate unconditional love to millions. He is even kind to his critics both within Christendom and without and has demonstrated that he is not a ‘Puppet-of-the-Right” as so many of his genre appear to be. He has done much and will likely continue to “push the envelope” within his faith. I like the 4-word epitaph that Rick says he wants on his tomb stone, “At least he Tried!”

If you still want to release the Loins on this one, so be it, but from a purely humanist perspective, I say, Bravo, Rick! Bravo, indeed!

Granpa Harley:
"Judging by Lorena's response, seems that it's not just Christians who can be cone headed bigots."

Lorena:
I generally agree with your posts and I respect you very much. But that insult is unwarranted and unjustifiable.

Let's stay away from insulting each other. There is enough hatred out there in the world already.

"This shows you that "Rick Warren" doesn't really know what he is talking about, Scripturally, and must be a false teacher. for he should keep his nose out of the affairs of this world system.

There cannot be such as a co-existence between Religions of this world for very long, their may be a "unification" of these Religions for Political purposes that will last a short period of time, very short like a period of Seven Heptads, and It will be headed by the False Christ, of Apostate Christendom, although the name may be changed to "Christ-mo-hi-bu-dism" the four major Religions of the world. "(Islam, Buddhism, HJinduism, and Christ-en-dom)". These will form One giant monstrossity called the "Beast"

Personally I admire Rick Warren because through his multimillion-copie selling books he is bringing a Christian awakening in this country. However i am not pleased that he is meddling into world affairs leaving his evangelistic work. It seems he has eyes on Nobel Peace Prize like Biship Desmond Tutu.
Definitely he is wrong to say that there is peaceful co-existence between Christians and Muslims in Syria. I have Christian friends in Syria who reported me how Muslims and the government harass them over their Christian work. Syria is also behind Islamic terrorist work in many neighboring countries especially against Israel through Hizbollah.
However, the atheist secularists are more dangerous to our country than Islamic terrorists. Because Islamic terrorists are foreign born and Muslim. But the atheists among us are back-stabbers to our nation because they eat God's food, they wear God's clothes, they are living on God's planet, yet they don't like God, His church and His Savior. God have mercy upon us!

What is obviously frustrating for many is the conflict one observes between theory and application.

Many non-believers and even believers accept the ideal/theory of separation of church and state within the U.S., for a lot of well founded reasons. None less important than to prevent the establishment of a theocracy within a nation, where all citizens bow to a dictator who receives their guidance by whim and desire.

The separation between church and state is synonymous with the separation of religion and national politics. Some could even suggest as the world becomes more economically interwoven that there be the separation of religion from international politics. And, surely one would use their same reasoning to support a domestic separation between religion and national politics as they would for the international arena.

However, that doesn't seem to be the case. If a survey were provided to many non-believers and asked if they support the separation between church and state/politics, most would likely say "yes".

There appears to be a conflict between that basic ideal, and how some advocate the application of the theory.

If one believes that religion and politics are explosive when mixed, how do they reconcile an evangelical Christian mingling with international politicians.

This article isn't about one individual, this article is much more important; it affects global relations, power and religion. There is no positive outcome if the two power sources; national/international politics and religion come together. If this occurs, there is no one to advocate for the individual citizen, as there is no questioning a politician who exalts their omnipotence via god given power. It's the moving from a national tyranny to a global tyranny.

Some may suggest that the possibility of world peace is enough to justify a mistress relationship between politics and religion. I believe that to be dangerous.

My heart goes out to those who have been fatigued over the years by being subjected to watching the continual bloodshed on the news, etc., and the resultant suffering. It forces many who can't handle additional stress in their lives to become desensitized, as they begin to tune out the topic and some of their immediate reality altogether.

However, there are others who remain vigilant at an emotional cost - and over time, may eventually begin to "hope" for the best for humanity as they try to hang on - even if that hope is focused on a religious figure who seeks a compromise between the separation of religion and politics.

I can't help to think, that if this article was replaced by a single question, what the resultant answers would be from many.

Question: "Do you believe that compromising (if for only a short while); the ideal of church and state separation can garner a nation or international community a positive outcome?"

History and logic says "no". Hope and desire says "yes".

Can the compromise between religion and politics ever really be a good thing? What if we posted a different evangelical engaged in providing hope for his people. Would that make one "hope" for humanity better than another "hope" for humanity?

There are a myriad of news sources on the following article, I cited FOX because it came up first on a Google search, choose another source if one doesn't care for this particular source.

"KKK's David Duke Tells Iran Holocaust Conference That Gas Chambers Not Used to Kill Jews"

Wednesday, December 13, 2006
"TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's conference questioning the Holocaust came to an end Tuesday, but not before hearing former KKK Imperial Wizard David Duke say that gas chambers were not used to kill Jews.

"The Zionists have used the Holocaust as a weapon to deny the rights of the Palestinians and cover up the crimes of Israel," Duke told a gathering of nearly 70 "researchers" in Tehran at Ahmadinejad's invitation.

"This conference has an incredible impact on Holocaust studies all over the world," said Duke, a former state representative in Louisiana who twice ran for president.

"The Holocaust is the device used as the pillar of Zionist imperialism, Zionist aggression, Zionist terror and Zionist murder," Duke told The Associated Press.

Also at the end of the conference, Mohammad Ali Ramini, an Ahmadinejad adviser who has called the Holocaust a "myth," announced that he will chair a committee to find "the truth on the genocide of Jews."

Other members of the committee will be Robert Fuerisson, a French professor who denies the existence of gas chambers, along with Holocaust deniers from Syria, Switzerland, Austria, Canada, the United States and Bahrain."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236014,00.html

There is no mild form of religion in regards to freedom, a liberal religion is no better than a conservative religion, they all fall back on absolutist views derived from a divine source that can't be questioned, it's the end of a democracy - its tyranny.

I have many Christian friends, who are liberal, yet when I question them about the separation between government/politics and religion, they - without blinking, state that the governments' job is to press the religious values to the citizens of the U.S., through legislation, etc, because that is what this country was founded upon, and there is no discussion beyond that.

Religion is about control, one person's political intervention on any given religious Sunday for a good cause, may well be the nightmare civilization has to live with for hundreds of years after the sermon.

It's amazing how non-believers can be divided on such a topic. On a separate thread, there is this no-compromise, take no prisoners approach to keeping religious books out of government facilities and parks. And, then on other issues with the same underlying concept, we have non-believers who lean towards the use of religious intervention during international politics.

If there is to be flexibility and compromise between the ideal separation between church and state, either domestically or internationally, then, I'd like to ask where this compromise makes sense - perhaps, at the Grand Canyon state park in Arizona?

If there is to be no flexibility and compromise on this ideal, and it’s to be followed absolutely, then how does one attack an entire nation’s electorate for adhering to other equally inflexible ideals?

Oh, and if someone cares to respond, please don’t patronize and insult the readers on this thread, by suggesting that one absolute ideal may be better for humanity than another absolute ideal – they both require an “absolutist” leader and administration.

Ah, the belief that there can be a compromise in the ideal separation of church and state, but then having to deal with the domestic intrusion of religion at government functions and legislation – unless one wants to accept one and not the other, making their belief conflicted, and basically hypocritical.

Ah, the belief that there must be an ideal separation of church and state as an absolute, but then having to deal with the stigma of being just as absolutist as the current administration on certain issues – unless one wants to accept one and not the other, making their belief conflicted, and basically hypocritical.

Paul wrote:
"However, the atheist secularists are more dangerous to our country than Islamic terrorists. Because Islamic terrorists are foreign born and Muslim. But the atheists among us are back-stabbers to our nation because they eat God's food, they wear God's clothes, they are living on God's planet, yet they don't like God, His church and His Savior. God have mercy upon us!"
posted: 1/05/2007 2:36 AM EST  

Dano here: Paul! If it weren't for the intellectual giants who penned the constitution and were secularist, we never would have become the nation we are today, where some people are free to go about their lives preaching the bronze age religious concepts, that were behind the crusades, the inquisition, witch burning, Indian killing, slavery and the countless lives damaged by religious indoctrination, and where others are free to try to put you out of business before you can bring back the dark ages, or precipitate a nuclear exchange between us, and another country which, calls God by a different name and has their own phony profit.
Dano (God doesn't like starving babies)

Paul, your comment about atheists being more dangerous than Islamic terrorists is petulant drivel. Others have already asked you this, but I think it's time you explained what you are doing here. What are you trying to accomplish with your idiotic comments? I have yet to see a single cogent remark from you, so you are not contributing to the discussions in any way. You seem to be relentlessly proselytizing and exposing yourself as a bigot at the same time. Isn't it time to say adieu?