http://lifewithoutfaith.com/index.php?/archives...
Dear Pastor Warren, I would like to thank you for hosting the Saddleback Civil Forum on The Presidency. I found it one of the most intriguing events of the election so far. While quite a few of the candidate's answers were their typical sound bites, the format you chose allowed us to at least glimpse the men behind the campaigns. I agree that the separation of church and state does not keep an individual's faith from their politics. It is also true we all bring a different "world view" to the political arena. However, it is important that we differentiate between views founded in religious doctrine and those based in philosophy and reason. As Americans, we have the freedom to practice religion (or not) as we choose; yet, our religious views are not immune to criticism or guaranteed respect. Discussion should not cease, and arguments are not trumped, as soon as a believer tosses up the flag of religion or declares a viewpoint based upon his or her "faith." Senator McCain received a round of applause when he boldly declared life and human rights begin at conception. What does this statement really mean? Surely those who agreed do not really believe an embryo is endowed with the same rights as an eight year old child. If this were true, the bombing of abortion clinics and the killing of doctors would be entirely justifiable. It would be akin to assassinating Dr. Megele as he walked the streets of Nazi Germany. Is it not possible for someone to be pro-life, but disagree on when life begins? Simply claiming an eternal soul created at conception does not even attempt to answer this question. The question of stem cell research should not even be grouped with abortion. Stem cells come from a three day old embryo called a blastocyst. It only contains about 150 cells (you kill more every time you scratch an itch). It has no circulatory system, no nervous systems, no respiratory system, no heart, and no brain. Add to this the fact that researchers would only use cells from blastocysts that are scheduled to be destroyed, and it is immoral to disallow it. How could anyone argue the "life" in a Petri dish is in any way equal to an 80 year old woman with Alzheimer's disease? Both candidates garnered applause with their answers to the question concerning the definition of marriage. It is no secret that most people's "world view" relating to this issue is directly related to their stance on homosexuality. It has been verified, time and again, that one's sexual orientation not determined by choice, but this is continually denied by those who base their arguments on scripture. Again, this view is not immune to the facts, and should not be considered automatically equal with those based upon evidence and reason. Perhaps our government should not endorse any type of marriage (hetero or homosexual). Marriage is a religious term and the government should only protect the rights of individuals within a legally binding civil union. Pastor, on Larry King you stated that you would not vote for an atheist President. I will not go into the bigotry of this statement, and why many are willing to accept it; I will simply pose some questions to you. Do you feel comfortable knowing that our President claims to have received God's guidance on his decision to run for the Presidency and then again before invading Iraq? Are we better off with a divinely inspired leader who says he got a good sense of Vladimir Putin's soul by looking into his eyes? Surely, it is enough that the leader of our Country acknowledges the Presidency is bigger than any one person, seeks input from a diverse group of advisors, and contemplates the consequences of actions before making a decision. Why is adding the element of prayer any more valid than the Reagan's dependence on astrology or McCain's massaging of his lucky penny? Finally, I admire your "whole-life" views and wish more believers joined you in your quest to heal disease, end poverty, stop suffering, and rid the planet of illiteracy. However, on your website, you say spiritual darkness is a larger giant to be defeated before any of these. Forgive me, but this leads me to question the ulterior motives of your "faith based initiative." Is not the primary purpose of the Christian life to carry out the Great Commission? Are you not to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations? Can you give a loaf of bread or teach someone to read, without first wanting to save their soul? Does the Bible not say, "What does it benefit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?" This is why government funding should only be granted to secular organizations that serve only for the benefit of humanity, and only aim to proselytize in the name of democracy and individual liberty. I am hopeful that despite our differing world views, we all can unite under our common goal to improve the world. However, I must admit I am pessimistic it is possible as long as any of us believe we have a special personal relationship with the Creator. When a non-believer disagrees with believer he just thinks the believer is wrong. Conversely, when a believer disagrees with a non-believer, his faith tells him that the non-believer will have eternal consequences for his lack of an invisible means of support. Sincerely, Brother Richardhttp://lifewithoutfaith.comhttp://atheistnexus.org